eda_dmt_schematic_create_schematic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the return semantics (schematic UUID, undefined = creation failed), which is genuinely useful. But it does not disclose side effects (where the schematic is created, whether it is persisted, or prerequisites such as an active project or window). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap, though the return behavior partially compensates.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded with purpose, followed by the signature and return semantics. The signature line adds the parameter name, and the return note is useful. No wasted sentences, though the raw TypeScript signature is a slightly odd inclusion that could be cleaner natural language.

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?

The return value is disclosed (valuable given there is no output schema) and the core purpose is clear. However, boardName semantics are unexplained, no prerequisites are stated, and side effects are not described. For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, an agent needs more context to call it correctly and confidently.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by naming the boardName parameter through the signature, which helps an agent interpret the generic 'args' array. However, boardName is never explained (is it the schematic's name? the board it belongs to? optional format?), leaving its meaning ambiguous.

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 clear verb+resource ('创建原理图'/create schematic) and shows the underlying method signature dmt_Schematic.createSchematic. It is distinguishable from the sibling create_schematic_page tool, which targets a page rather than a schematic. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from copy_schematic or other schematic lifecycle tools.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. Among many schematic siblings (copy_schematic, create_schematic_page, delete_schematic, get_all_schematics_info), there is no routing, exclusion, or condition that would help an agent choose this tool over alternatives. Nothing tells the agent when creating a new schematic is appropriate versus copying or deleting one.

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