Prepare Step

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered structurally, and the description's 'Insert' is consistent with that (no contradiction). Beyond repeating the operation, the description discloses nothing about side effects, whether the directive is appended or replaces an existing one, or how it interacts with the schematic being edited.

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 padding, which is efficient, but it is under-specified for a tool with two required parameters rather than genuinely concise. There is no front-loaded scope statement beyond the directive name.

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-read-only mutation tool with 33% parameter coverage, no output schema, and numerous confusable siblings, the description omits too much: the directive's purpose, its parameters, and how it differs from the other prepare_* tools. An agent cannot reliably invoke it correctly from this definition alone.

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 33% — only workspace_root is documented — and the two required parameters, schematic_path and statement, are unexplained in both the schema and the description. The description adds no meaning about what 'statement' should contain (e.g., the raw .step syntax), leaving the agent to guess.

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 names a verb (Insert) and a resource (.step directive), so the basic action is identifiable. However, it does not clarify that this is a SPICE parameter-sweep directive rather than something related to step-response measurement (see siblings measure_step_response, list_steps), and it does not distinguish itself from the large family of prepare_* directive tools (prepare_param, prepare_dc_sweep, prepare_transient).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling prepare_* directives, no prerequisites, and no indication of what conditions call for a .step directive. The single sentence provides no context that would help an agent route between prepare_step and, say, prepare_param or prepare_dc_sweep.

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