sch_place_line

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 that the operation targets the active schematic and that the drawn object is non-electrical (so it won't affect connectivity), but says nothing about undoability, grid snapping, layer assignment, or prerequisites such as an open schematic document.

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 purpose and the key distinction, followed by usage, args, and return. Every sentence either defines scope or documents a parameter; there is no 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?

Covers purpose, disambiguation, and all five parameters. An output schema exists, so the 'Returns' line is slightly redundant rather than necessary. Minor gaps remain around layer/color placement and document-state prerequisites, but the definition is sufficient to invoke correctly.

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 schema provides no enums, so the description supplies all the meaning: endpoints are in mils, and line_width is mapped to 1/2/3 = small/medium/large, which is otherwise undiscoverable.

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 decorative line on the active schematic') and immediately disambiguates from the nearest sibling: 'This is a graphic line, not a signal wire. Use `sch_place_wires` for electrical connections.' An agent can select this tool without opening any 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?

It names the alternative (sch_place_wires) and the condition that selects it (electrical connections), then lists intended uses (borders, arrows, diagram overlays). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are explicit.

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