Create Schematic

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds no extra behavioral context such as whether existing files are overwritten, whether a project must be open, or what side effects occur. No contradiction exists, but the description adds zero value beyond annotations.

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 very short, but its brevity stems from under-specification rather than efficient communication. It is not bloated and reads clearly, but it lacks substantive content that would justify its existence beyond the tool name.

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 destructive mutation tool with an output schema (not shown) and numerous related sibling tools, this description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's role in the schematic lifecycle, its relationship to project context, or any expected return values, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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?

The schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (name and path) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Create a new schematic' merely restates the tool's name and title, offering no additional specificity about what a schematic is, what creating entails, or how it differs from sibling tools like create_project or add_schematic_component. This is essentially a tautology.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_project or create_board_from_schematic. There is no mention of prerequisites like an open project or intended workflow, leaving the agent without context for correct invocation.

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