Add Hierarchical Sheet

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

Annotations indicate destructive and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds significant context about what gets modified: 'Adds the sheet box, name/file fields, a sheet_instances path entry on the next page number, and fixes sub-sheet component instance paths'. This goes beyond annotations and clarifies the side effects.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every clause adds value. No redundant or filler content.

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, annotations, and schema descriptions, the description provides a strong overview of the tool's behavior and side effects. Minor gap: it doesn't explicitly mention potential failure modes or prerequisites beyond 'existing sub-sheet file', but overall it is complete for the tool's 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 100%, and the description does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema. It references 'sub-sheet file' and 'name/file fields', which map to existing schema descriptions but add no extra meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Insert a hierarchical-sheet reference block into a parent schematic' with specific additional actions listed. It distinguishes from siblings like create_hierarchical_subsheet by specifying 'pointing at an existing sub-sheet file'.

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 implies when to use the tool: when referencing an existing sub-sheet file and needing to fix instance paths for ERC. It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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