proj_load_sheets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses idempotency ('no-op for sheets already loaded', 'safe to call repeatedly'), the side effect (sheets become proper project members, no free documents), the alternative tool for diagnosing membership, and per-bucket failure reporting.

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 verb action, then the failure mode it fixes, then the idempotency guarantee, then args/returns. Every section is labeled and no sentence is filler.

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?

Output schema exists and the return buckets (total/loaded/already_loaded/failed) are echoed coherently; the description adds the non-obvious precondition semantics that neither schema nor annotations convey. Complete for a zero-required-param helper.

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% and the single optional parameter is fully explained in prose: 'Optional project path. If None, uses focused project.' That default behavior is exactly the meaning the schema lacks.

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 ('Load every schematic sheet of a project into the Altium editor') and immediately scopes it against project-scope operations that only iterate resident sheets. An agent can distinguish this precondition helper from proj_list_documents/proj_get_connectivity without reading a 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?

'Call this tool first' gives an explicit ordering/context, and the description explains the loaded=false symptom that motivates the call. It doesn't name a concrete sibling alternative to use instead, but the when-to-use and no-op conditions are clear.

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