Create a blank original-format schematic

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

Adds substantive behavior beyond the annotations: confirm=false yields a preview rather than an apply, and an existing file is never overwritten. Neither fact is derivable from destructiveHint=false/idempotentHint=false alone, so this is genuine added value; it stops short of describing what the call returns or any write-side effects on the target directory.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the safety default, then the workflow handoff. No filler; every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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 no output schema, the description should ideally say what a preview returns relative to an applied create, and it does not. It otherwise covers the mode toggle, the overwrite guarantee, and the follow-on tooling, which is close to sufficient for a 6-parameter creation tool.

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 path, width, height, confirm, project, and workspace are already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces the confirm preview semantics already stated on that parameter, adding no syntax, defaults, or constraints beyond the structured fields.

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 and resource ("Create a version-6 GDF sheet") with the concrete flavor that distinguishes it from other gdf_* writers, and explicitly names the sibling it is not: "Use gdf_construct for symbols/wires." An agent can pick between gdf_create and gdf_construct without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear context for use (blank sheet creation) and routes the agent to alternatives for the adjacent task (gdf_construct for symbols/wires, compiler/simulator for verification). It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls just below the top band.

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