add_hierarchical_sheet

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, non-open-world. The description confirms mutation (creates objects). It does not contradict annotations. However, it lacks details on edge cases (e.g., overwriting existing sheets with same name, impact on existing labels). The description adds some behavioral context but not enough for full transparency.

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: two introductory sentences followed by a clear, bullet-like list of parameters. No unnecessary words or repetition. Every sentence serves a purpose. The structure is easy to scan.

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, prerequisites, and parameters well. However, it does not mention the return value or output of the tool. Since an output schema exists (as per context), the description should at least hint at what the tool returns (e.g., success indication or created sheet details). This gap reduces completeness for a creation tool.

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 schema has 0% description coverage (only titles). The description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: parent_schematic_path, sheet_name, sheet_file, pins (with 'name' and 'direction' keys and allowed direction values), x, y, and project_path. It adds meaning beyond the raw schema, especially for the pins array structure.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Add a hierarchical sheet to a parent schematic with matching labels in the child.' It specifies the verb (add), resource (hierarchical sheet), and the two-step action (create sheet block in parent and hierarchical labels in child). This differentiates it from siblings like add_hierarchical_label or modify_hierarchical_sheet.

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 precondition: 'The child schematic must already exist (create it with create_schematic first).' This provides clear guidance on when to use the tool and a prerequisite step. It implies not to use it if the child doesn't exist. However, it doesn't mention alternatives like modify_hierarchical_sheet for existing sheets.

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