proj_add_sheet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses one side effect (the file is created alongside the project file) and that it returns the new path. It does not say whether existing sheets with the same name are overwritten, whether the sheet is written to disk immediately or only added to the project tree, or whether it requires the project to be saved.

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 core action and its filesystem behavior are front-loaded in the first two sentences, then Args/Returns are cleanly separated. Slightly redundant in restating the default already present in the schema, but overall tight and scannable.

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 the return value does not strictly need describing. For a one-parameter creation tool the description covers location, naming constraint, default, and result path. The remaining gap is precondition/error behavior around the 'focused project' requirement.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter, and it does: it explains the extension must be omitted ('.SchDoc' is appended) and restates the default 'NewSheet'. That is a meaningful format/validation constraint the bare string schema does not convey.

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+resource: 'Create a new schematic sheet and add it to the focused project.' The scope ('focused project') and target format ('schematic sheet') are clear. It does not differentiate itself from the similar proj_add_document / sch_place_sheet_symbol siblings, so an agent must infer which creation tool applies.

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?

Mentions that the sheet goes into the 'focused project', which implies a project must be active, but this prerequisite is never stated explicitly and no failure behavior is given for when nothing is focused. There is no when-not guidance and no named alternative among siblings such as proj_add_document or sch_place_sheet_symbol.

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