Add schematic text label

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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false. The description adds a genuinely valuable behavioral warning ('untyped placeholders create nothing despite returning ok'), disclosing a silent-failure mode the annotations don't. It doesn't cover permission or transaction requirements, but that is meaningful added context for a write tool.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the purpose comes first, then the net-label distinction, then the parameter traps. No filler sentences, though the parenthetical example list is slightly crowded.

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 12-parameter, non-idempotent write gated by confirmWrite, the description covers purpose and two parameter pitfalls but omits several opaque fields (alignMode range, rotation semantics) and any note on the required-coordinate convention. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 8% (essentially just confirmWrite), so the schema is nearly silent on 12 parameters. The description partially compensates by mandating hex for color and a real font for fontName, but it says nothing about alignMode (1-9), rotation, or fontSize, leaving most parameters undocumented.

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 and resource ('Place free-standing text on the schematic sheet') plus concrete use cases (section headers, notes, block labels), and explicitly distinguishes it from a net label. An agent can differentiate it from create_net_flag/create_net_port without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use it ('cosmetic/organizational, not a net label'), which implicitly routes net-labeling needs to the net flag/port siblings. No explicit 'use X instead' or exclusion list, so it falls short of a 5.

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