sch_place_sheet_entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key domain rule (name must match a child port for continuity) plus that the call returns a confirmation dictionary. It omits failure behavior on name mismatch, whether the active document must be the schematic, and whether the operation is undoable — meaningful gaps for a document-mutating tool.

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 in sentence one, followed by a compact domain gloss and a conventional Args/Returns block. The child-port matching rule is repeated in both the prose and the entry_name arg line — minor redundancy, otherwise no 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?

Five parameters are all described, an output schema exists so return values need no elaboration, and the domain prerequisite is covered. What is missing for a mutation tool is the failure/validation story (what happens if the port doesn't exist) and any indication of required document state.

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 coverage is 0% and no enums are declared in the schema, yet the description supplies the allowed values for io_type ('input' | 'output' | 'bidirectional' | 'unspecified'), for side ('left' | 'right' | 'top' | 'bottom'), and gives units for distance_from_top (mils). It also clarifies the cross-reference requirement for entry_name. This is fully additive over 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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Place a sheet entry port on an existing sheet symbol'), and the following sentence defines what a sheet entry is and ties it to the parent sheet symbol — which implicitly separates it from sch_place_sheet_symbol (creates the symbol) and sch_place_port (child-sheet side). An agent can classify the tool without opening the 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?

Preconditions are stated explicitly: the target must be an existing sheet symbol, and entry_name must match a port defined in the child .SchDoc or electrical continuity is lost. That is a real when-to-use constraint. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating what to do when no matching port exists.

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