flatten_hierarchy

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnly=false; the description adds crucial nuance by specifying that it creates a new file and does NOT modify the original hierarchy. It also mentions offset positioning, giving an agent accurate expectations for the output layout. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 and front-loaded: a one-sentence summary, a brief merge explanation, a safety note, then a clear Args list. Every line earns its place with no fluff, maintaining high readability and quick comprehension.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, file creation side effect, and both parameters. It could mention potential overwrite behavior of output_path, but the output schema likely covers return details. Overall, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose (schematic_path as the root file, output_path as the destination) and clarifies optionality and defaults. This adds meaningful context that the bare schema property names lack, making parameter usage clear.

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 a specific action ('Flatten a hierarchical schematic into a single sheet') with the resource (.kicad_sch hierarchy) and differentiates from siblings like list_schematic_sheets or add_hierarchical_sheet by the flattening intent. The verb 'flatten' precisely captures the operation, making it distinguishable from other schematic tools.

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?

Provides clear context on the operation's effect (merging child sheets, creating a new file) and the key caveat that the original is untouched. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the scope is well-defined and prerequisite-free, which makes usage clear enough for an agent without requiring exclusions.

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