sch_create_sheet

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It only states the creation action without disclosing side effects, reversibility, prerequisites (e.g., active sheet must exist), or error behavior. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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?

One concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, 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?

The description is too sparse for a creation tool with 5 parameters and no annotations. It omits parameter meaning, coordinate context, file behavior, and return/error info. The only useful context is that it targets the active top-level schematic.

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 has 0% property description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any parameter (e.g., what 'name' vs 'filename' means, what coordinates are relative to, or the effect of 'snap_to_grid'). The description provides no compensation for the missing schema details.

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 uses the specific verb 'create' and identifies a distinct resource 'child schematic sheet' and its destination (active top-level schematic), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that add symbols, wires, or labels.

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 implies usage when a child sheet needs to be added to a schematic hierarchy, providing clear context of the action and target. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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