Prepare Noise

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

Annotations only declare that this is not read-only, not idempotent and not destructive; they say nothing about what is actually modified. The description adds no behavioral context: it does not say the directive is written into the schematic at schematic_path, whether an existing .noise directive is replaced or appended, or what permissions/state are required. With annotations this thin, the description should carry more of that burden.

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?

One short sentence with no padding, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than discipline. It is front-loaded only in the trivial sense that there is nothing else to say.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only minimal annotations, the definition is far too thin. An agent cannot know what a valid call looks like (required schematic_path/output/source semantics), what gets changed on disk, or how to confirm success.

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 13% (just workspace_root), and the description provides no parameter information at all. The 8 parameters, including analysis-defining ones like source, output, sweep, points, f_start and f_end, are entirely undocumented, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

It states a specific verb (Insert) and a resource (a ``.noise`` directive), which is more than a tautology. However, it never explains what a ``.noise`` directive accomplishes or how it differs from the many sibling prepare_* directives (prepare_ac, prepare_transient, etc.) or from read_noise, which reads noise results. The purpose is technically stated but opaque to an agent unfamiliar with SPICE.

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 guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. must a schematic already exist at schematic_path?), and no mention of alternatives such as read_noise for retrieving results or the other prepare_* analysis directives. The agent is left to infer everything from the tool name.

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