eda_pcb_manufacture_data_upload_bom_template_file

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

Annotations are absent, so the description bears the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the action and the return value (BOM template name), but does not mention potential side effects, such as whether an existing template with the same name is overwritten, permission requirements, or failure behaviors. This is a mutation operation with minimal behavioral detail.

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 very short, consisting of a signature line and a brief Chinese phrase plus return statement. It is not overly verbose, but it lacks structure such as sections or bullet points. It front-loads the signature, which is useful, but the overall presentation is minimal.

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 simple upload function, the description is incomplete. It does not mention prerequisites like an open PCB document, whether the file must be in a specific format, or what happens on error. The return value is stated, but the meaning of the 'template' parameter is unclear. Given no output schema, the description should provide more operational context, but it does not.

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?

The description provides the function signature with parameter types and order (templateFile: File, template?: string), which adds meaning beyond the generic 'args' array in the schema. However, it does not explain the purpose of the 'template' parameter or any constraints on the file format. The description partially compensates for the schema's lack of detailed parameter documentation, but leaves semantic gaps.

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 clearly states the action: uploading a BOM template file, with a specific function signature. The resource (PCB manufacture data) is implied by the name and the prefix. It is distinct from the sibling schematic upload tool (eda_sch_manufacture_data_upload_bom_template_file) via the name, but the description itself does not explicitly differentiate. Thus it is clear but lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use the PCB version over the schematic version, or any context like requiring an active PCB document. The description provides no usage context, exclusions, or conditions, leaving the agent without any selection criteria.

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