Add Schematic Text

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

The description adds the useful context that text annotations have no electrical significance, which is beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true). It does not disclose file-saving requirements, reversibility, or side effects, but the destructive hint already signals mutation, so the additional context earns a mid-level score.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by usage examples and a clear distinction from net labels. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

The description is sufficient for a tool with 8 parameters and an output schema. It provides the core purpose, usage guidance, and key distinction. It does not mention prerequisites like having a schematic open, but that is common to related tools and not a critical gap.

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 all parameters are already documented. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, such as coordinate system or units, beyond what the schema provides. 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?

Description clearly states the tool adds a free-form text annotation to the schematic, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from net labels by noting text annotations have no electrical significance, which also differentiates it from the sibling tool add_schematic_net_label.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this to add notes, labels, section headings, or documentation strings' and contrasts with net labels, implying when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or provide an exclusionary 'do not use for' scenario beyond the net label distinction.

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