add_text

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

The annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation, but the description adds no extra behavioral context. It doesn't disclose whether it modifies the file in-place, creates duplicates, or requires an open schematic, leaving the agent without important side-effect information.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and uses a clear Args list. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or filler content.

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?

For a simple add operation, the description covers the primary purpose and parameter meanings. However, it lacks behavioral side effects, error handling, or prerequisites, and the presence of an output schema doesn't replace the need for this context. It's minimally viable but not fully 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description's Args section is essential. It explains text content, x/y position, rotation in degrees, and the optional schematic_path with its default behavior. This compensates well for the schema gap, though it omits coordinate units/origin specifics.

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 states 'Add a text annotation to the schematic' with a specific verb and resource, clearly identifying the action. However, it doesn't differentiate from similar sibling tools like add_label or add_global_label, leaving potential ambiguity for the agent.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_label, add_global_label, or add_pcb_text. The description only states the action, not the context or exclusion criteria.

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