sch_annotate

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

The annotation destructiveHint=true already discloses the destructive nature. The description adds minimal context by indicating the action is about renumbering references, but it does not explain side effects (e.g., overwriting existing designators, impact on BOM/netlist) or any prerequisites. It does not contradict the annotation, so it earns a middle score.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and free of filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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?

Despite having only two optional parameters and an output schema, the description is too sparse to be complete. It lacks parameter explanations, usage context, and any behavioral details beyond the basic action, leaving an agent inadequately informed to invoke the tool correctly in varied 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'order' or 'start_number' parameters. The parameter names and defaults appear in the schema, but without descriptions or any elaboration in the tool description, the agent cannot determine valid values (e.g., what 'alpha' means) or how they affect the renumbering.

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 'Renumber schematic references sequentially' states a specific action (renumber) on a specific resource (schematic references) and clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools, none of which mention renumbering. It is concise yet unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool or how it relates to alternatives. It does not specify typical use cases (e.g., after adding/removing components) or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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