sch_add_power_symbol

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

The description discloses the default snap-to-grid behavior (2.54 mm), which is useful and not visible in the schema. However, it does not explain the destructiveHint annotation or any side effects, and no error conditions or constraints are mentioned.

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?

Single sentence, directly states the purpose and a key default behavior. No wasted words.

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 placement tool with an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks context about required project state, does not explain the destructiveHint, and gives no indication of what happens on success or failure.

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 adds some meaning by implying that x_mm/y_mm form the anchor and that snap_to_grid controls the 2.54 mm snapping. But 'name' and 'rotation' remain undefined, and no allowed values or syntax are given.

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 verb ('Add') and resource ('power symbol'), and the mention of grid snapping distinguishes it from a generic symbol add. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool 'sch_add_symbol'.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sch_add_symbol or sch_add_hierarchical_label. The intended use is implied by the name and 'power symbol' but not stated as a rule or exclusion.

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