add_hierarchical_sheet

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

Annotations are largely uninformative (all hints false). The description does add behavioral context by stating it 'Creates the sheet block in the parent and corresponding hierarchical labels in the child schematic,' which reveals the two files that are modified. However, it doesn't disclose what happens on partial failures, whether it overwrites existing labels, or other edge-case behaviors.

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 compact: two introductory sentences followed by a structured Args list. There is no filler or redundancy. Every sentence and item in the Args list contributes essential information, making it easy to scan and parse.

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 prerequisites, all parameters, and the core side effects of the operation. The presence of an output schema means return value details are not needed. It lacks discussion of edge cases such as duplicate labels or invalid states, but for a tool with 7 parameters and clear prerequisites, it is sufficiently 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?

The description includes a full Args list that explains all 7 parameters, including the meaning of each and the direction allowed values (input, output, bidirectional, tri_state, passive). Since the schema provides 0% description coverage, the description is the sole source of parameter semantics and covers them thoroughly.

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 action: 'Add a hierarchical sheet to a parent schematic with matching labels in the child.' It clearly identifies the resource (schematic hierarchy) and the verb (add), and the detail about creating matching labels distinguishes it from related tools like add_hierarchical_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?

The description explicitly states a key prerequisite: 'The child schematic must already exist (create it with create_schematic first).' This gives clear context for when to use the tool. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the combination of hierarchical sheet plus label creation makes the intended use obvious.

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