add_global_label

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive operation. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by explaining that the label is visible across all sheets and that schematic_path is optional with a default configuration. This is sufficient behavioral disclosure for a straightforward add operation.

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 concise and well-structured: a single purpose sentence followed by a clean args list. Every line adds value, and the parameter explanations are tightly written without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with six parameters and three required, the description covers all parameter semantics, states the tool's global-label scope, and explains the optional schematic_path with its default behavior. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not needed. The description is fully adequate for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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?

The description provides detailed, human-readable explanations for all six parameters, including the rotation degree mapping (0=right, 90=up, etc.), the valid shape enum values, and the optional behavior of schematic_path. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and adds clarity beyond the bare schema properties.

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 clearly states 'Add a global net label' with a specific verb and resource, and adds the scoping detail 'visible across all sheets' that distinguishes it from local label tools like add_label or hierarchical labels. It is precise and not a tautology.

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 description implies usage for cross-sheet net labels via the phrase 'global net label (visible across all sheets)', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_label or add_hierarchical_label, nor does it mention exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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