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

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds critical behavioral context: it opens a confirmation dialog requiring human approval, success only means request sent not components appeared, and recommends verification. This significantly exceeds what annotations alone provide, with no contradiction.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a caution and user guidance. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundancy or irrelevant detail. It is directly actionable for an AI agent.

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?

Given the output schema exists, return value explanation is not needed. The description covers the essential behavioral nuance (human approval, async effect) and post-action verification. It missed parameter guidance but that's partly covered by schema. Overall sufficiently complete for a tool of moderate complexity.

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 50% (only confirmWrite has a description). The tool description adds no parameter information beyond the schema; it does not mention projectId or confirmWrite. While the schema already describes confirmWrite's constraint, the description should have clarified the role of projectId or the overall parameter usage, making this a gap.

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 it requests a schematic-to-PCB sync (SCH_Document.importChanges). The title and description together specify the verb (request sync) and resource (schematic to PCB), distinguishing it from all sibling tools, none of which offer the same sync functionality.

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?

The description provides clear context: it requires human approval in a dialog, and advises to verify the result with pcb_components. It implicitly tells when to use (after schematic changes needing PCB sync) but does not explicitly list alternatives or contraindications. Overall useful guidance.

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