add_sheet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states that dry_run=true previews without writing and that committing requires expected_sha256, which is meaningful safety/behavioral context. It does not mention reversibility, transaction interactions, or error states, but the disclosed workflow is substantive.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value. The dry-run guidance is compact and actionable with no filler.

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?

The description covers the core preview-then-commit workflow but omits context around optional parameters like txid, path, and sheet_type, and does not clarify transaction or document-state requirements. The output schema likely fills return-value gaps, but for a 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description is only partially 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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explicitly explains dry_run and expected_sha256 semantics and their relationship. However, it does not explain the other four parameters (name, path, txid, sheet_type), leaving gaps for required inputs and optional context.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Add a new sheet to a schematic document') that clearly states the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_wire or add_trace by specifying 'sheet' and 'schematic document', and the dry-run workflow adds further precision.

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 provides a clear usage workflow: first run with dry_run=true to preview, then after inspecting the preview set dry_run=false and pass expected_sha256. It gives a concrete when-to-use and when-to-avoid, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or conditions for choosing a different operation.

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