add_ip_to_bd

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the mutation mechanics (cell creation plus set_property -dict for CONFIG.*), which is genuinely useful. However it omits prerequisites (open BD), failure behavior (duplicate cell_name), and whether the design is saved.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the conditional config behavior. Nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description should cover more: the required open-block-design context, the returned cell handle, and error cases are missing. For a 3-parameter mutation tool it is adequate but leaves 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains that the 'config' object is applied as CONFIG.* properties via set_property -dict, which goes beyond the schema's bare 'Dict of CONFIG.* properties' wording.

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 ('Add an IP core to the current block design') and even gives the equivalent Tcl command, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like add_module_to_bd (RTL module) or create_ip.

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 phrase 'to the current block design' implies a block design must already be open, but that prerequisite is never stated. No when-to-use vs. alternatives (add_module_to_bd, create_ip, configure_bd_cell) guidance is given.

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