sch_instantiate_template

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's non-destructive behavior: 'It does NOT directly edit the schematic' and 'returns a structured action plan.' It goes beyond basic read/write hints by detailing what the plan includes (symbols, connections, part-search steps) and the output format (markdown).

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 with a concise opening sentence, a clear non-editing clarification, and neatly labeled Args/Returns sections. Every sentence contributes meaning, and the most important behavioral detail (non-editing) is front-loaded.

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 no annotations and low schema coverage, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, relationship to sibling tools, parameter semantics, and return format. It also mentions prerequisites and gives concrete usage guidance, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke 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%, but the description compensates fully. Each parameter is explained with meaning and examples: template_name is sourced from sch_list_templates(), prefix is illustrated with 'PWR_' producing 'PWR_U1', and params is shown as a dict override example '{"vout_v": 5.0}'. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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 begins with 'Instantiate a subcircuit template — returns a structured action plan,' which clearly identifies the tool's purpose and scope. It further distinguishes itself from direct-editing tools by explicitly stating 'It does NOT directly edit the schematic,' making it specific and differentiated from siblings like 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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('use the plan as a guide for calling sch_add_symbol, sch_add_wire, lib_recommend_part, etc.') and what not to expect ('does NOT directly edit the schematic'). It also references a prerequisite, 'template_name (from sch_list_templates()),' providing clear usage context.

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