Creates a new electronics design with a schematic and board, saving it to the active project by name, optionally in a folder created if missing.
Create a new electronics design with a schematic and a board. With name, it is saved right
away into the active project (optionally inside folder, created if missing).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| folder | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only supply the generic safety flags (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive). The description adds real behavior beyond them: the design is persisted immediately into the active project only when `name` is given, and `folder` is auto-created if missing. That side-effect disclosure is genuinely useful, though return/ID behavior is unstated.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the persistence rule. No filler or restated title content.
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?
For a 2-param creation tool with no output schema and generic annotations, the description covers the essential creation and persistence semantics. The only gap is what the caller receives back (e.g., a design handle) and how to subsequently interact with the new design.
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 carries the full burden and does so for both parameters: `name` triggers immediate saving into the active project, and `folder` is an optional destination created if missing. It compensates well, though it doesn't clarify the exact behavior when `name` is omitted.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new electronics design') plus the resulting artifacts ('with a schematic and a board'), which immediately distinguishes it from list_designs and open_design. An agent can identify it as the creation entry point without opening the schema.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: this is the tool for starting a fresh design, contrasted implicitly with open_design/list_designs. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite guidance, so the agent must infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.