create_schematic

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false, so the description correctly implies a mutation. It adds context about creating an empty file and the overwrite parameter's default behavior. No contradictions.

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: the first defines the tool's core purpose, the second provides usage guidance. No wasted words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 creation tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and present annotations, the description sufficiently covers purpose, usage context, and basic behavior. Minor missing details like file path handling are acceptable for this complexity.

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% with clear default descriptions. The description adds value by noting that default width/height match LTspice defaults, which aids parameter understanding.

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 'Create an empty .asc schematic' with a specific verb (create) and resource (.asc schematic). It also mentions the tool's role as a starting point for incremental editing via sibling tools, distinguishing it from creation tools like create_netlist.

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 tip explicitly advises preferring 'create_netlist' + .cir for design iteration and using this tool only when 'a visual schematic is the deliverable'. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and contrasts with an alternative.

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