annotate_schematic

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

With no annotations indicating safety or idempotency, the description must disclose behavior itself. It does so by explaining that it assigns sequential numbers, respects existing references, and scans the hierarchy when project_path is given. It could be more transparent about file modification or reversibility, but the provided details are substantive.

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 tight: a one-sentence summary, a short explanatory paragraph, and an explicit Args list. No filler words. Every sentence contributes to understanding what the tool does and how to use it.

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 two-parameter tool, the description covers the essential behavior, parameters, and hierarchy nuance. An output schema exists, so return value details are not required. It doesn't address edge cases like partially annotated boards or error scenarios, but given the tool's simplicity, the description is largely 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 input schema has no descriptions for the two parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains both schematic_path and project_path concisely, including their optionality and the effect of omitting them (using configured default, scanning hierarchy). This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare names and defaults.

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 verb and resource: 'Auto-assign reference designators to unannotated components.' This clearly states the tool's core function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_component or add_wires. The additional detail about finding '?' in references further pins down the exact use case.

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 tells you when to use this tool: when components have '?' in their reference designators. It also explains hierarchical behavior when project_path is provided. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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