Add Schematic Net Label

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

Even with annotations already marking destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, the description adds substantial behavioral context: the exact-pin snapping guarantee, the failure mode of even 0.01mm offsets, and what fields the response will include (actual_position, snapped_to_pin). This goes well beyond the annotation flags and helps the agent anticipate tool behavior accurately.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: action, preferred approach, alternative, and response detail. Key information is front-loaded and the formatting with PREFERRED is scannable. No wasted words.

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 7-parameter tool with complete schema descriptions and an output schema, the description covers the critical operational guidance needed to use the tool correctly: how to guarantee a connection, precision requirements, and response fields. It is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke this tool accurately.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful inter-parameter semantics: it explains how componentRef+pinNumber work together to snap the label, and that position must match the pin endpoint exactly. This clarifies relationships not evident from individual property descriptions, pushing above baseline.

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 opens with a clear action: 'Add a net label to the schematic.' This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from siblings like add_schematic_component or add_schematic_wire. It also clarifies the tool's role in creating electrical labels, reinforced by the preferred snapping behavior and connection guarantee.

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 explicitly provides two usage paths: preferred componentRef+pinNumber and fallback position [x,y], with a clear warning about coordinate precision. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of the sibling add_schematic_hierarchical_label, even though labelType supports hierarchical_label, leaving some ambiguity for that specific alternative.

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