sch_import_changes

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds only the direction of change but does not explain what gets destroyed, whether schematic elements are overwritten, or any side effects, adding little beyond the annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It directly conveys the operation without redundancy.

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 destructive, non-idempotent tool that modifies the schematic, the description is insufficient. It omits when the tool should be used, what happens to existing schematic data, and any relationship to the complementary pcb_import_changes tool, leaving critical context gaps despite the annotations covering only the safety profile.

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 schema fully documents both the required 'document' and optional 'instance_id' parameters. The description does not mention parameters at all, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('import') and resource ('changes from PCB back into the schematic'), clearly indicating the direction of synchronization. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool pcb_import_changes or other import tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pcb_import_changes or project_import_file. There are no prerequisites or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and direction.

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