add_sheet_pin

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

Annotations indicate a mutating operation (readOnlyHint false) but not destructive, which is consistent. The description adds constraints like pin name matching and optional schematic_path, but does not disclose side effects on the child schematic or failure behavior. Some transparency is provided, but not deep.

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 a concise docstring with a clear opening purpose sentence and an Args block. No wasted words, though it is structured more like a code docstring than prose, which is appropriate for the format.

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?

With an output schema present and all parameters explained, the description covers essential context for using the tool. It lacks examples or error conditions, but for a straightforward parameterized tool, 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?

All 5 parameters are explained in the description, including allowed values for connection_type and side, and the optional nature of schematic_path. Since schema descriptions are empty (0% coverage), this description fully compensates and adds significant meaning beyond the 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 the action ('Add a pin') and the resource ('existing hierarchical sheet block'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It distinguishes itself from siblings like remove_sheet_pin and is specific about what the pin is added to.

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 phrase 'existing hierarchical sheet block' implies the sheet must already exist, and the note about matching a hierarchical label provides context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions, leaving usage guidance implied rather than stated.

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