new_sheet

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

Annotations establish a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds genuine context beyond that: Fusion does NOT auto-add a frame, the env-var default fallback, and the return payload (sheet number + drawing area). This is meaningful behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then addresses the two non-obvious parameters in order. Dense but every clause is functional. Slightly terse transitions ('or none') keep it from a 5.

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?

No output schema, but the description explicitly names what is returned (sheet number and drawing area). Combined with param and mutation context, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only the format/shape of the return value is unspecified.

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 carry the load and largely does: `frame` syntax ('DEVICE@LIBRARY') and default source, `sheet` for targeting an existing sheet, and `title` as the headline/sheet description. Only the null/omitted behavior of frame and title is left slightly implicit.

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+resource ('Add a schematic sheet') plus the two side effects (frame, headline). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like new_design, add_part, or add_text. An agent can tell what it produces 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?

Explains the two operating modes: pass `sheet` to configure an EXISTING sheet vs. create a new one, with a concrete example ('sheet 1 of a new design'). It also clarifies the frame default resolution order. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling tool, so not a full 5.

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