sch_place_cross_sheet_connector

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool places something on the active sheet and returns a dict with success/x/y/net, but it does not describe mutation side effects, undo implications, failure conditions, or whether the active sheet must be a specific sheet type.

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 short and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first and Args/Returns clearly separated. Every sentence adds useful information, and the structure is easy for an agent to scan.

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?

It covers purpose, all four parameters, and the return shape, which is more than sufficient given an output schema exists. The main remaining gap is explicit guidance on when to use this versus sibling placement tools.

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%, so the description must compensate. It documents all four parameters meaningfully: x/y in mils, net as the bound net name, and side as optional 'left' or 'right', adding units and allowed values absent from the 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 ('Place a cross-sheet connector') and immediately clarifies it as an 'off-sheet port' on the active sheet. It also explains the conceptual role as the hierarchical equivalent of a net label, which distinguishes it from ordinary label/port placement siblings.

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 gives a clear conceptual condition: use this to connect a signal to the same net name on another sheet. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with alternatives such as sch_place_port, sch_place_net_label, or sch_place_sheet_entry, so an agent must infer when this is preferable.

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