add_global_label

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

Annotations indicate a modification tool (readOnlyHint=false), and the description adds behavioral context by noting the 'visible across all sheets' scope and explaining rotation/shape. However, it does not disclose potential side effects or prerequisites beyond the parameters.

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: a single opening line followed by a compact list of arguments. Every sentence is informative with no wasted words or repetition.

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?

The description covers purpose and all parameters adequately. Since an output schema exists, the absence of return value details is acceptable. It lacks usage context like differentiating from sibling tools, but for a simple add operation, the information is nearly complete.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: text with examples, x/y positions, rotation with degree-to-direction mapping, shape with list of valid values, and schematic_path. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's type/default information.

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 (visible across all sheets)', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like add_label (local) and add_hierarchical_label (hierarchical) by the 'global' and 'across all sheets' qualifiers.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements, and no mention of related tools like add_label for local labels.

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