Construct schematics and edit parameters and wire names

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: preview/backup/atomic-apply semantics, that deleted symbols leave their wires behind, that duplicate wire names can connect remote geometry, and that legacy/ambiguous parameter records are preserved and refused for edits. It stops short of describing rollback behavior on partial failure.

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?

A dense but efficient paragraph: the core purpose leads, operands and prerequisites follow, and caveats close it out. Every sentence carries information, though the run-on enumeration of operations is somewhat heavy to parse in one pass.

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 12-operation, destructive, offset-addressed construction tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, transactionality, verification caveats, and edge-case semantics (orphaned wires, legacy records). Return-value information is absent but no output schema exists, leaving response shape unspecified — a minor 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 the schema already documents path, offsets, SHA-256, operations and their sub-fields. The description echoes the offset/SHA-256 requirements but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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?

States a specific verb (construct) and resource (GDF v6) and enumerates the operation families: inserting SYM instances, naming wires/buses, editing parameter maps, normalizing NET_IDs, adding/deleting wires, symbols and annotations. An agent can tell this is a schematic-writing tool. It does not, however, distinguish itself from overlapping siblings such as gdf_edit, gdf_create, or gdf_wire_cleanup, which is the only missing piece for a 5.

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 supplies prerequisites (existing offsets and current SHA-256 required; preview unless confirmed; atomic apply) which imply the intended context, but it never says when to reach for this tool versus gdf_edit, gdf_create, or gdf_wire_cleanup. Usage is inferable from the operation list rather than stated.

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