pcb_import

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation/non-idempotent profile is covered structurally. The description adds only that payloads are Base64-encoded and which formats exist — it never says what the import overwrites on the board, even though that is precisely the destructive behavior an agent should know about.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope; the second sentence is a compact format legend. Nothing is padded, though the format list partly duplicates the schema enum.

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?

A destructive, non-idempotent 5-parameter import with no output schema and 100% documented params is structurally well covered, but the description omits the one thing it alone can supply: how it differs from pcb_import_changes and project_import_file, and what state the target document ends up in.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; document, instance_id, data and fileName are fully documented in the schema. The description only marginally expands the format enum by glossing each value (FreeRouting SES, JSON autoroute/autolayout), which is small added value over the enum itself.

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?

Specific verb+resource: importing routing/layout result files into the PCB, with the accepted file types enumerated. This distinguishes it from pcb_export, but not from the near-named siblings pcb_import_changes or project_import_file, so an agent still has to guess which import tool applies.

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?

Format names (autoroute_json, autolayout_json, autoroute_ses) imply the use case — you have an external autoroute/autolayout result to load — but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite statement, and no routing to the sibling import tools. Usage is only inferred.

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