sch_swap_gates

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

Annotations are empty, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states that the tool records intent, but gives no detail on side effects, whether anything is modified, validation performed, or how the recorded intent is used downstream. This is insufficient for an agent to understand operational impact.

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 with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It lacks structural elements such as parameter details or usage context that would make the sentence more informative.

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?

This is a relatively simple tool with three parameters, but the description is not complete enough. It omits parameter semantics, usage guidance, and any behavioral consequences. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of input explanation.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any parameters. The names gate_a, gate_b, and component_ref are self-explanatory only to domain experts, but the description adds no elaboration on what constitutes a gate or how they are identified. The agent is left without essential parameter meaning.

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 clearly identifies the tool's action ('Record') and resource ('gate-swap back-annotation intent for a multi-unit component'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sch_swap_pins (which actually swaps pins) by emphasizing 'intent' recording rather than performing the swap.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or any conditions. It does not mention that this only records intent and does not physically change the schematic, nor does it direct users to actual swap tools like sch_swap_pins.

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