sch_set_sheet_size

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

Given destructiveHint=true, the description adds useful context beyond the annotation: it notes the operation changes paper dimensions, lists supported sizes, and prescribes that sch_auto_place_functional should be called again afterward. It also discloses that a confirmation with old and new dimensions is returned, which is not in the schema. No contradictions found.

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 purpose, usage context, supported sizes, and follow-up instruction in separate paragraphs. It is verbose but every sentence adds value—no filler, and it is front-loaded with the main action.

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 single-parameter tool with a destructive annotation and an output schema, the description covers when to use, what it does, parameter semantics, post-condition, and return value. The only minor gap is not naming the sibling alternative sch_auto_resize_sheet, but the description is otherwise complete.

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% because the schema property lacks a description, but the description fully compensates by defining 'paper' as a target paper size keyword, listing all supported values (A4, A3, A2, A1, A0, A, B, C, D, E, USLetter, USLegal), and stating the default 'A3'. This exceeds what the bare schema provides.

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 'Change the schematic sheet (paper) size', providing a specific verb and resource. It also lists supported sizes and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like sch_auto_resize_sheet by implying manual size selection, making the purpose 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?

It explicitly states 'Use this when the current sheet is too small to fit all symbols' and references a concrete trigger from sch_auto_place_functional warnings, plus a follow-up action to re-place symbols. However, it does not mention alternative tools (e.g., sch_auto_resize_sheet) or exclusion cases, so it falls short of the top score.

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