add_hierarchical_label

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

Annotations indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false), but the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that. It mentions the name must match the parent sheet pin name, but does not disclose what happens on mismatch, whether the file is saved automatically, or other side effects. Given the annotations are present but not highly informative, the description carries some burden and partially fulfills it.

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, with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a compact Args block. Every line provides necessary information (parameter name, explanation, or constraint) without extraneous prose. The front-loaded purpose makes it immediately scannable.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (so return values need not be described) and the parameters are fully explained, the description covers most operational context. However, it lacks mention of prerequisites such as the sub-sheet and parent sheet pin existing, and does not describe error behavior. These gaps are moderate given the tool's complexity.

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 input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: text must match a parent pin, shape is a direction with enumerated values, x/y are positions in mm, rotation is in degrees with allowed values, and schematic_path is optional. 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 clearly states 'Add a hierarchical label to a sub-sheet schematic,' using a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_label and add_global_label. The phrase 'hierarchical label' and 'sub-sheet schematic' makes the tool's unique scope unmistakable.

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 provides clear context for when this tool should be used: adding hierarchical labels to sub-sheet schematics. It also includes a critical usage constraint: 'Label name (must match parent sheet pin name).' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to differentiate from similar tools.

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