sch_place_rectangle

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the shape is non-electrical/destructive-free (decorative only), the coordinate unit (mils), the fill default, and the return shape — but says nothing about which document it mutates, whether it can be undone, what happens on an invalid region, or whether it requires an active sheet.

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 first sentence front-loads the action and scope, and the Args block is terse with no filler. The docstring formatting is slightly mechanical but every line carries information.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description documents all parameters and units, and an output schema exists so return details are not needed. It falls short only on preconditions (active document/sheet) and mutation side effects, which an agent would want before calling.

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% (only bare titles), so the description does real work: it explains that x1/y1/x2/y2 are opposite corners in mils, that solid toggles fill vs. outline, and that line_width maps 1/2/3 to small/medium/large. Only minor gaps remain, such as line_width units and whether values outside 1-3 are valid.

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 (place a rectangle shape on the active schematic) plus a scope qualifier (decorative only) that distinguishes it from functional placement tools like sch_place_line or sch_place_wires. It does not name a sibling outright, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

"Decorative only" implicitly tells the agent this is for annotation, not electrical geometry, which is meaningful routing guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not language, no mention of prerequisites such as an open schematic or the current sheet, and no named alternative for other shape types.

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