sch_place_sheet_symbol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden, and it discloses the critical dangling-symbol consequence if `sheet_file_name` does not match a project member. It also states the required follow-up workflow with `sch_place_sheet_entry`, though it does not cover active-document prerequisites or reversibility.

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 front-loaded with purpose and key constraint, then provides structured parameter and return notes. Every sentence adds useful information for correct invocation, with no repetition or 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?

For this hierarchical schematic placement tool, the description covers the required project-member constraint, coordinate semantics, optional display label behavior, follow-up workflow, and return confirmation. Since an output schema exists, it need not expand further on return shape.

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%, but the description documents all six parameters. It explains coordinate units in mils, gives an example filename for `sheet_file_name`, and states the default behavior for `sheet_name`.

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: placing a sheet symbol linking to a child schematic document. It also distinguishes this operation from the related sibling `sch_place_sheet_entry`, making it clear which tool handles sheet symbols versus sheet entries.

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 explicitly says this is used for hierarchical designs and that the parent sheet needs one sheet symbol per child .SchDoc. It names the follow-up tool `sch_place_sheet_entry` and gives the key selection condition: `sheet_file_name` must match a project member.

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