sch_increment_designators

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the active-sheet scope, that each numeric suffix is mutated, and that delta must be non-zero, but it omits reversibility, permission requirements, behavior on locked designators, and possible temporary collisions caused by the offset.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed immediately by a concrete example and concise parameter notes. Every sentence contributes useful information with no redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

For a two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations but an output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers scope, parameters, an example, the intended workflow context, and return fields. It could go further by noting interaction with locked designators or the need to re-annotate afterward to resolve any duplicates.

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%, but the description fully explains both parameters: delta is a non-zero integer added to each designator's number, and prefix optionally restricts changes to designators with that letter prefix. The R5→R105 example adds practical meaning beyond 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: offsetting the trailing numeric suffix of schematic designators by a delta on the active sheet, with an R5→R105 example. It is clear enough to distinguish this from annotation or designator-fixing siblings, though it does not name a sibling explicitly.

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?

It provides a concrete usage scenario: useful after copying a block to avoid designator collisions before re-annotating. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as proj_annotate or audit_find_designator_collisions.

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