annotate_schematic

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

The description states that it modifies the schematic by assigning reference designators, respecting existing references, and using the project path for hierarchy scanning. Since annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, this is consistent. It does not contradict any annotation. The description adds sufficient behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence summarizing the action, followed by a bullet-like list of arguments. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no extraneous information.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the main functionality and input parameters adequately. Some minor details (e.g., behavior when no '?' components exist) are omitted, but overall it is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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, so the description must provide parameter meaning. It does so by stating that schematic_path is the path to .kicad_sch and project_path is the path to .kicad_pro for hierarchy scanning. This adds meaningful context beyond the empty 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 uses a specific verb (auto-assign) and clearly identifies the resource (reference designators to unannotated components). It distinguishes this tool from all siblings, as no other tool performs annotation.

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 explains what the tool does but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. However, the purpose is clear enough that usage is implied.

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