Set schematic title block fields

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

Annotations only indicate read-only=false and idempotent=false. The description adds critical behavioral context: writing non-exposed fields once corrupted a title block, and those fields are read-only natively. This goes beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. The warning is efficient and essential.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description covers the scope, constraints, and prerequisite (confirmWrite), making it complete for a title block update tool.

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 that only these five fields are exposed and mentions the confirmWrite requirement, but it doesn't add significant detail beyond the schema itself.

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 explicitly states the tool updates title block fields and lists the five exposed fields (Company, Version, Drawn, Reviewed, Page Size). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like easyeda_schematic_add_text or easyeda_schematic_modify_primitive, which handle other schematic elements.

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?

The description explicitly warns against writing Symbol/Border/Device/etc. fields (which are read-only natively) and directs the user to fix such cases via the EasyEDA Pro UI. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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