sch_add_hierarchical_label

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

The annotations include destructiveHint=true, and the description adds that shape and rotation are preserved, providing some behavioral context beyond the annotation. However, it does not disclose other side effects like grid snapping or placement behavior, and the meaning of 'destructive' in this context is not elaborated. With the annotation present, the description adds modest value but lacks depth.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately names the action and object. It contains no redundant words or filler, making it an excellent example of concise writing that conveys the core purpose efficiently.

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 tool is simple and has an output schema, but the description lacks context about when to use it versus sibling label tools, what a hierarchical label specifically is, and how it relates to sheet hierarchy. While the basic function is clear, the missing guidance could lead to incorrect tool selection in ambiguous situations.

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 all parameters (text, x_mm, y_mm, shape, rotation, snap_to_grid) rely on the description for semantic context. The description only mentions 'shape and rotation' in a general way and does not explain formats, coordinate interpretation, or defaults. This leaves most parameters underspecified and does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 the action ('Add') and resource ('hierarchical label'), and the qualifier 'hierarchical' distinguishes it from sibling label tools like sch_add_label and sch_add_global_label. The added detail about preserving shape and rotation gives a specific behavioral clue, though what exactly constitutes a hierarchical label is not explained.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sch_add_label or sch_add_global_label. The term 'hierarchical' implies a use case in hierarchical schematics, but no conditions, exclusions, or comparisons are provided, leaving the choice to the user's domain knowledge.

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