annotate_schematic

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false, idempotent=false), so the description's added value is the lifecycle and return contract: it says annotations clear when the design changes and that the call returns a local viewer URL and count. That ephemerality note is genuinely useful context an agent cannot get from the annotations, though permissions and size limits are only in the schema.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler; the action is front-loaded and each remaining sentence carries distinct information (return value, lifecycle). Nothing to trim.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it replaces, what it returns, and that the effect is not persistent across design changes. It does not mention required permissions or confirm the clearing semantics of an empty list (that lives in the schema), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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% and the single `items` parameter is documented in detail (path/kind/severity/message, 200 cap, 2000 chars, pins/ports only, [] clears). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ("Replace") and resource ("schematic annotations") plus the target objects ("instances or pins/ports"), so the agent immediately knows this is a mutation of annotation overlays. No sibling is named, but no other sibling tool does annotation work, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: you call it to set annotations on a schematic. There is no statement of when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., get_schematic_selection for reading the current selection) or any precondition such as a design needing to be loaded first. Adequate but leaves routing and prerequisites to inference.

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