obj_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose that placement targets the active schematic document or the current library component, plus the return type. It leaves gaps on side effects an agent may care about — whether the object is selected after creation, undo/checkpoint behavior, or what failure looks like when no active document exists.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the sibling routing, then an Args block. The one apparently extraneous clause ("one IPC round-trip for the whole set vs one LLM turn per object") is the justification that makes the routing advice credible, so it earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be detailed, and the description still sketches the confirmation. For a creation tool with three params, the main remaining gap is error/precondition behavior (active document requirements, invalid object_type or malformed property string), which an agent would benefit from knowing before calling.

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 0%, and the description compensates fully: `object_type` is a constant cross-referenced to `obj_query`, `properties` is documented as pipe-separated key=value with a concrete example ("Text=MY_NET|Location.X=100|Location.Y=200"), and `container` enumerates its two accepted values with meanings. This is genuinely additive over the bare schema.

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 and place a schematic object") and immediately distinguishes it from the sibling `obj_batch_create`. An agent can tell from the first sentence that this is the single-object path.

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 an explicit exclusion rule: use `obj_batch_create` when creating more than one object, and explains why (round-trip cost vs LLM turns). It also covers the container choice semantics (place on active schematic vs add to current library component), so both the when-to-use and the target selection are answered.

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