add_sheet_pin

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

Annotations indicate non-readOnly (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), so the tool modifies but is not destructive. The description does not elaborate on side effects, such as whether adding a pin modifies the sheet structure or requires specific permissions. It adds parameter details but no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations minimally provide.

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 at 7 lines, starting with a clear one-sentence purpose statement followed by a bullet-list-style parameter breakdown. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or redundancy.

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 the tool's purpose and all parameters adequately. While an output schema exists, it is not referenced; adding a note about the return value or typical usage context would improve completeness. However, for a simple creation tool, it is largely sufficient.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the JSON schema. The tool description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: sheet_uuid (UUID of the sheet), pin_name (must match a hierarchical label), connection_type (with enumerated values), schematic_path (path to parent schematic), side (which sheet edge). This adds significant meaning beyond names and 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?

The description clearly states 'Add a pin to an existing hierarchical sheet block,' which is a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('pin to hierarchical sheet block'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'remove_sheet_pin' 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 implies usage for adding a pin to a hierarchical sheet block but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use modify_hierarchical_sheet instead). No exclusions or preconditions are mentioned.

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