Request schematic-to-PCB sync (needs human approval)

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: a human approval dialog in the EasyEDA Pro UI blocks completion, and a successful return only means the request was sent, not that components were applied. This is exactly the kind of side-effect/latency disclosure annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint true) cannot convey.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the caution immediately after it; the verification pointer closes the loop. No filler, and the most important caveat is not buried.

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 write tool with an output schema already present, the description covers the critical unknowns: human-in-the-loop approval and the need to confirm the result separately. An agent has everything required to call it and interpret the response correctly.

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?

confirmWrite is documented in the schema (must be literal boolean true), but projectId has no description in either the schema or the description, giving only 50% coverage. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so it neither compensates for the gap nor exceeds the schema baseline.

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 specific verb+resource ('Request a schematic-to-PCB sync') and even names the underlying API call (SCH_Document.importChanges), which no sibling tool duplicates. An agent can tell this apart from the read-only schematic inspection tools 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 clear operating context: the user must approve a dialog, and the agent should then verify with pcb_components. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name a competing sync path, but no sibling offers an alternative sync, so context is effectively complete.

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