Suggest Schematic Declutter

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing that connectivity is never altered, the anchor is fixed, dry run is the default, and apply=true is required for mutation. This directly complements the destructiveHint=true annotation by clarifying exactly when modification occurs and what is returned (proposals + overlap 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?

The description is compact yet comprehensive, using two sentences to convey purpose, mechanics, default behavior, and scope. Every clause earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 covers the tool's purpose, default dry-run behavior, the effect of apply=true, the return structure (proposals with name/at/from_angle/to_angle plus overlap score), and scope limitations. Given the tool's mutation capability and the presence of an output schema, this is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), including defaults and meanings. The description restates the apply default and margin default but adds no new parameter-level semantics, so the 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 clearly states the specific action: 'Re-orient overlapping net/global labels' and explicitly differentiates from moving labels by noting the anchor is held FIXED and only orientation/justification changes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like move_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?

The description provides clear context for when to use (overlapping labels needing readability) and explains the dry-run vs apply=False/true workflow. It also states scope limitations ('Phase 1: labels only'), but does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion scenarios, so slightly below full marks.

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