aedt_insert_design

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it overwrites existing designs, permission requirements, or side effects. For a write operation, more detail is needed.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but too brief given the tool's complexity. It lacks structural elements like usage notes or parameter details, making it only minimally adequate.

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?

Despite having an output schema (observed true), the description fails to provide context for parameter behavior, default behavior (e.g., current project), or expected outcomes. The tool has 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and the description alone is insufficient for safe invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but does not mention any parameter meanings. The four parameters (design_type, design_name, solution_type, project_name) are left unexplained, leaving the agent without guidance.

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 action ('Insert a design'), the target ('into an AEDT project'), and the mechanism ('through the native Project API'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like aedt_new_project or aedt_open_project by focusing on inserting a design into an existing project.

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 implies the tool is used for inserting a design into a project, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., aedt_new_project for new projects). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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