add_hierarchical_label

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false), and description adds constraints (text must match parent sheet pin, shape enum values, rotation degrees). No contradictions. Some side effects unmentioned (e.g., whether adding overwrites), but acceptable.

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?

Very concise: one-line purpose followed by a clean parameter list. Every sentence is necessary; no fluff. Well-structured.

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?

Covers purpose and parameters. Does not explain what a hierarchical label is or prerequisites (e.g., existence of parent sheet). Sibling tools exist but not differentiated. However, output schema exists, so return values need not be described.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning, allowed values (shape enum, rotation range), and constraints (text must match). Adds significant value beyond schema types.

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?

Clearly states 'Add a hierarchical label to a sub-sheet schematic' with specific verb and resource. The term 'hierarchical' distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'add_label'.

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?

Implies usage context via 'sub-sheet schematic' and the requirement that text must match parent sheet pin name, but no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives like 'add_label' or 'add_sheet_pin'.

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