manage_sheets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It notes that mutations exist (add/remove/add_pin/remove_pin) but never says what remove destroys, whether renames are reversible, what permissions are needed, or how errors are surfaced, leaving a significant gap for a mutation-capable tool.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by well-organized Args and Returns sections with no filler. The length is justified by 13 params and six actions, though the arg list is somewhat dense.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the action-conditional param map is present. What is missing is any account of what each action actually does to the schematic or how failures are reported, which matters given the tool's breadth and lack of annotations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description does the heavy lifting by mapping each of the 13 params to the actions that require it (e.g., parent_uuid for set_context, pin_uuid for remove_pin). It falls short only on value semantics like valid pin_type or edge values.

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 names a specific resource (hierarchical sheets) and enumerates six concrete operations, which distinguishes it from the many manage_* siblings (manage_schematic, manage_components). However 'manage' remains a generic verb and the description never contrasts itself with related tools like manage_hierarchical_labels.

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?

Usage is only implied through the action list and the per-action required-param notes; there is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over siblings or any when-not guidance. An agent can infer what each action does but not when it is the right call.

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