import_routing_from_kicad

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the operation is one undo step, the coordinate frame matches import_placement_from_kicad, every segment is validated against the Fusion board, and it warns about a severe performance pitfall (pours refilling after every via, 40+ minutes with 490 vias).

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and packed with useful detail, with almost no filler. The single dense paragraph mixes prerequisites, parameter behavior, and a performance anecdote, which slightly reduces scanability, but every clause earns its place.

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?

For a mutating, no-output-schema import tool, the description covers prerequisites, coordinate frame, parameter effects, dry-run behavior, excluded content (pours), and a critical performance warning. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely and correctly is 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 carry parameter meaning. It clearly explains nets (limits import to those nets), vias (vias=false skips vias), and dry_run (counts only), but pcb_path is never described despite being required. Three of four parameters are well covered, leaving a minor gap for the path argument.

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?

States a precise verb (Copy) and resource (a KiCad board's tracks, arcs and vias into this board), and explicitly names sibling tools it is not (import_placement_from_kicad, add_pour). An agent can distinguish it from all routing/import siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit ordering prerequisites ('Run import_placement_from_kicad first'), exclusion rules ('Pours are not copied (use add_pour)'), a sequencing constraint ('Import BEFORE adding pours'), and a diagnostic mode ('dry_run=true only counts'). When-to-use and alternatives are fully covered.

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