eda_dmt_schematic_create_schematic_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return type (UUID or undefined on failure) and implies a mutation (creation). However, it does not mention any side effects, whether it requires an existing schematic, or if it changes the current document. The failure mode is disclosed, but other behavioral aspects are missing.

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 concise, with a function signature and two short sentences. It front-loads the signature and then gives a brief return explanation. However, the mixed Chinese/English could be clearer, and the structure could separate the description from the technical details, but it is appropriately sized.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain where to obtain the schematicUuid (e.g., from get_all_schematics_info), whether the schematic must be open, or any preconditions. It lacks context on the operation's effect on the document hierarchy and error scenarios beyond undefined.

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?

The description adds specific meaning by stating the function signature with schematicUuid, clarifying that the args array expects a schematic UUID as the first parameter. The schema only provides a generic 'JSON parameter array', so the description compensates by revealing the actual parameter and its purpose. It also explains the return value meaning.

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 the action clearly: '创建原理图图页' (Create schematic page) and provides the function signature with parameter and return type. It distinguishes from siblings like create_schematic (which creates the parent schematic) and copy_schematic_page, though not explicitly. The verb 'create' and resource 'schematic page' are specific, making the purpose clear.

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 alternatives, such as creating a schematic first or using get_all_schematic_pages_info to list existing pages. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., a schematic must exist) or when this is the appropriate operation. The description gives no usage context.

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