sch_set_sheet_size

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden well: it identifies the mutation target (SheetStyle on the current SchDoc), notes that empty orientation leaves the setting unchanged, and states that it returns a confirming dictionary. It does not discuss permissions, reversibility, or side effects beyond the style change.

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 the core action and then uses compact Args/Returns sections. It is slightly repetitive about custom width/height but remains efficient and easy to scan.

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?

It covers the action, all parameter semantics, valid style names, and return confirmation, which is sufficient for a 4-parameter mutation tool. The only gap is deeper mutation-safety context such as permissions or reversibility, but that is a minor omission given the tool's focused scope.

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%, so the description fully documents every parameter: style names, custom width/height in mils with the dependency on style='Custom', and orientation accepted values including the empty-value behavior. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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 description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Set the sheet size / template style of the active schematic.' It further specifies that it changes SheetStyle on the current SchDoc, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clearly explains how to use the tool: named styles or 'Custom' with explicit width/height, and that style, orientation, or both may be supplied. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, though the guidance is strong enough for correct invocation.

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