sch_build_circuit

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

With empty annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool 'replaces the entire schematic content' and that 'any symbols already placed in the schematic will be lost.' It also discloses grid snapping, auto_layout behavior, connection-aware routing, and error handling for unroutable nets. This is comprehensive transparency for a destructive operation.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: statement of purpose, a prominent IMPORTANT warning, detailed behavioral notes, and a numbered workflow. Every sentence adds value; there is no padding, and the formatting improves scannability.

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 tool's destructive nature and the empty annotations, the description covers all critical aspects: what it does, what it overwrites, how to avoid data loss, how to use it correctly, its grid snapping, auto_layout behavior, error reporting, and alternatives. The output schema exists, so omitting return-value details is acceptable. This description is fully sufficient 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the roles of symbols, wires, labels, nets, coordinates, auto_layout, and grid snapping in context (e.g., 'If nets are also provided the layout is connection-aware...'). However, it does not explicitly mention the power_symbols parameter, which is a minor gap given the other parameters are well contextualized.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Build (overwrite) the active schematic from structured symbol, wire, and label inputs.' It immediately clarifies that this is a full replacement operation, not a partial edit, and explicitly names sibling tools (sch_add_symbol, sch_add_wire, sch_add_label) as the alternatives for incremental additions, preventing any confusion with related 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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: it warns against using this tool for incremental edits and directs users to sch_add_symbol/sch_add_wire/sch_add_label instead. It also offers a recommended workflow with sch_find_free_placement and explains when to set auto_layout=True, giving clear contextual direction.

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