Create Starter Schematic

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the mutation and repeat-call behavior is covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context of its own: it does not say what a 'starter' schematic contains, whether schematic_path is created or overwritten, or what happens on a repeat call.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste, and the most useful fact (the three kinds) sits first. It is arguably over-terse for a 3-parameter write tool, which keeps 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?

For a non-idempotent file-creating tool with 33% schema coverage and no output schema, the description leaves out what the agent needs: the meaning of schematic_path, overwrite/create semantics, and how the generated circuit relates to the requested kind. The information gap is substantial even accounting for the annotations.

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 only 33% – workspace_root is the sole documented parameter. The description partially compensates by enumerating the valid 'kind' values (divider, RC, buck), which the schema's bare "type": "string" does not convey. However the required schematic_path gets no format or expectation guidance from either source, so this is only a partial offset.

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 (Create) plus the resource (starter schematic) and enumerates the three supported kinds (divider, RC, buck), so an agent knows exactly what gets produced. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling create_schematic or materialize_reference_circuit, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. With create_schematic, materialize_reference_circuit, and several scaffold_* siblings all producing schematics, the description gives the agent nothing to route on. The kind list hints at scope but not at selection criteria.

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