sch_place_note

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden: it does disclose that the note goes on the 'active schematic' (an implicit prerequisite that a document be open) and that the box auto-sizes to the corner pair. It says nothing about undoability, coordinate constraints, layer, or failure modes, and the 'Returns: Dictionary confirming note placement' line is thin.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by use cases, geometry, and a compact Args block; the structure is conventional and scannable. The 'Returns' line is near-empty and the Args block partly restates required fields, but there is little genuine waste.

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 return values need no prose, and the coordinate semantics plus units are covered. For a five-required-parameter mutating placement tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions, however, the description leaves gaps around preconditions, coordinate limits, and what happens to the commented design object afterward.

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% (properties carry only bare titles like 'X1'), so the Args block does real work: it identifies x1,y1,x2,y2 as box corners, gives the unit as mils, and explains that the box is sized to the (x1,y1)-(x2,y2) span, which is the key geometric contract. It stops short of stating ordering rules (e.g. whether x1 must be less than x2) or bounds.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Place a text-box note on the active schematic'), which is far better than restating the name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as sch_place_text_frame, sch_add_directive, or design_live_note, which an agent could plausibly confuse with this one.

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?

The line 'Useful for design commentary, TODO markers, revision notes' implies when to reach for it, but there is no explicit exclusion or pointer to an alternative when a text frame, directive, or live note is the better choice. Usage is inferable but not routed.

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