add_net_label

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behaviors: distances are in millimetres regardless of document units, and dry_run previews without writing, requiring a checksum to commit. This is strong transparency, though it does not detail error behavior or reversibility.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by essential unit and workflow details. No waste; every sentence adds value.

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 having 10 parameters, the core operation is well covered: required params (net, x, y) are hinted via units and 'net-bound'. The safety-critical dry_run/expected_sha256 workflow is explained, and an output schema exists to cover return values. Some optional parameter semantics are missing, but the essential context is sufficient.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies x/y units (mm) and the role of dry_run and expected_sha256. However, optional parameters like path, text, txid, sheet, and font_size are left unexplained, leaving gaps for the agent to infer.

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 action ('Add a net-bound text label shape') and the target resource ('to a schematic sheet'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_wire or add_sheet, which serve different purposes.

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 gives clear workflow instructions: use dry_run=true to preview, then set dry_run=false only after inspecting and passing expected_sha256. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the usage context is well-defined for the tool's intended operation.

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