create_schematic_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states the output is synthetic and not verified, and that overwriting requires a current SHA—critical behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it does not mention what happens if the target exists without overwrite, nor the return format, though an output schema exists.

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 that wastes no words. It clearly states the core purpose first, then adds the essential overwrite prerequisite. Every element earns its place.

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 tool has 6 parameters and no annotations, making the description the primary source of guidance. It does not explain the semantics of units, sheets, or path, nor error conditions when overwrite is false and the file exists. The output schema covers return values, but the description is too sparse for the tool's complexity.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate. It adds crucial meaning for overwrite and expected_sha256 ('overwrite needs current SHA'), but it fails to explain units, sheets, format_version, or path. The schema already documents format_version and expected_sha256, so the description adds only marginal value for most parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create synthetic, not DipTrace-verified Schematic XML.' It distinguishes this tool from create_pcb_document and other generation tools by explicitly noting the synthetic, unverified nature. The overwrite note adds further specificity.

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?

Provides a clear prerequisite for overwrite scenarios: 'overwrite needs current SHA.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, such as when a DipTrace-verified schematic is required. The context is partial but not fully framed.

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