Prepare Op

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

Annotations already declare this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) that is non-idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds nothing beyond 'Insert' — it doesn't say where the directive lands, whether repeated insertion duplicates it (relevant given idempotentHint=false), or whether the schematic must be open/saved.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, so it is concise. But at this length it is under-specified rather than tight — brevity comes at the cost of any useful semantics.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and only half its parameters documented, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot confirm what the directive does, where it is inserted, or the side effects of repeating the call.

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 50%, and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all. The required schematic_path and its accepted form are left entirely to the schema/agent inference, and workspace_root's role is undocumented in the description.

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 states a specific verb ('Insert') and resource ('.op directive'), which is better than a tautology. However it never explains what an '.op' directive does (SPICE operating-point analysis) and does not differentiate itself from the many sibling 'prepare_*' tools beyond the directive token.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus the twenty-plus sibling prepare_* directives, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance. The agent must infer the appropriate analysis context entirely 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.