Create Hierarchical Subsheet

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating it creates a new file and links it into a parent, and that it performs two underlying operations in one call. This goes beyond what the annotations express, though it does not detail edge cases like overwriting existing files or failure modes.

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 contains zero filler. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and relationship to sibling operations.

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?

With a destructive operation, the annotations and description together cover its side effects. The output schema exists, so return value details are not required. The description is sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool, though a brief note that the parent schematic must already exist would push it to full completeness.

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 67% (4 of 6 properties have descriptions). The description itself does not elaborate on any parameters, leaving size and position without schema descriptions and no compensating explanation. However, the key parameters (parentSchematicPath, subsheetPath) are described in the schema, so a baseline of 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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Create a new sub-sheet .kicad_sch file and link it into a parent schematic.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from its siblings by framing it as the combined operation of create_schematic and add_hierarchical_sheet, which is explicit and unambiguous.

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 explains when to use this tool—'in a single call (create_schematic + add_hierarchical_sheet)'—and labels it 'the fastest way to grow a hierarchical design.' It names the two alternative operations it combines, but does not mention explicit exclusion cases or when the separate calls might be preferable, so it stops short of a full when/when-not guide.

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