pvsyst_prepare_sourced_design

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that source text is never returned, that the identity label cannot be overridden, that conflicts return blocked with the concrete field, and that no envelope/coefficient/limit can be injected without a citation. It omits permission/auth needs and any rate or size limits, keeping it below a 5.

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 purpose is front-loaded and nearly every clause carries substantive information, but the text is delivered as long run-on sentences with parenthetical asides that are hard to parse on first read. It is dense rather than padded, yet a bulleted or segmented form would convey the same content more reliably.

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 5-parameter nested tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers inputs, validation behavior, status semantics, and return contents (electrical_design draft, reused envelope result, citation provenance). Remaining gaps are minor: no ordering relative to sibling preparation tools and no detail on individual design-goal fields.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: pan_name/ond_name are exact loose component filenames resolved workspace-first, sources maps short ids to declared text of kind manufacturer/site/assumption, and each declaration ties a value to a source id, excerpt, and exact value/unit tokens. The nested design goals are only labeled 'explicit engineering goals', leaving individual goal fields undescribed.

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 compound action: bind caller-declared excerpts to source text and build the design-envelope request, plus the identity composition rule. It is clear what the tool does, but it never names or contrasts the obvious siblings (pvsyst_prepare_design_project, pvsyst_simulate_design, pvsyst_build_sourced_component), so differentiation is left to inference.

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 implied through the status outcomes (ready/needs_review/blocked) and the rejection conditions (identity disagreement, repeated field, legacy binary/non-UTF-8), which tells an agent when the call will succeed. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus pvsyst_prepare_design_project or pvsyst_build_sourced_component, and no stated prerequisites or ordering.

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