Kicad Sch Add Label

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation ('add'), but does not disclose whether it writes to disk, requires specific permissions, is idempotent, or has any other side effects beyond creating a label. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but operational behavior remains undisclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words and no repetition of structured metadata. It is structurally sound, though its extreme brevity means it does little beyond naming the 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?

Given a mutation tool with four required parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, a single sentence is insufficient. The path parameter is unexplained, there is no usage context, and behavioral aspects such as file modification are absent. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the description remains significantly incomplete.

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% for all four required parameters. The description loosely implies 'text' via 'net label' and 'x'/'y' via 'position,' but 'path' is entirely unmentioned. No additional syntax, format, or unit information is provided to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Add a net label to a schematic.' This distinguishes it from siblings like kicad_sch_add_wire and kicad_sch_add_symbol by the resource being acted upon, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as needing an existing schematic path or open project. The usage is only implied by the verb 'add'.

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