sync_schematic_to_pcb

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It explicitly states the additive (non-destructive) nature, the fixed unit behavior (millimetres regardless of document units), and the dry-run versus write workflow. However, it does not detail side effects on existing PCB objects or required permissions, which prevents a perfect score.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences long, front-loads the purpose, and each sentence adds unique value: purpose, unit quirk, and safety workflow. No redundant content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Although it provides a critical safety protocol and an output schema exists, the description is too thin for such a complex mutation tool. It leaves the meaning of many parameters and the exact synchronization behavior (e.g., what 'additive' implies for conflicts) unexplained. The presence of an output schema mitigates return-value concerns, but parameter semantics are largely missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains dry_run and expected_sha256, while the remaining 11 parameters (e.g., placement, reconciliation_mode, component_mappings) are left undefined. This is insufficient for a 13-parameter tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Additively synchronize schematic components, nets and ratlines into a PCB', which precisely identifies the action, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like compare_schematic_to_pcb by emphasizing the additive synchronization behavior and the target PCB.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides a clear usage sequence: start with dry_run=true to preview, then set dry_run=false only after inspecting the preview and passing expected_sha256. This gives contextual guidance on safe invocation, but it does not explicitly compare against alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls shy of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.