create_block_design

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two real behavioral traits: the design becomes the current one (a state mutation beyond mere creation) and board_part has an external dependency on BSP installation. It omits failure behavior on name collisions, prerequisite project state, and what is returned.

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 sentences, zero waste, and the primary action plus its 'make current' side effect are front-loaded ahead of the optional-parameter caveat.

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 2-parameter creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, the main state side effect, and the one non-obvious dependency. Missing only the project-must-be-open prerequisite and duplicate-name behavior, which are minor for this complexity.

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; the description earns above that by adding meaning the schema does not have — that board_part is applied to the project beforehand and requires the BSP to be installed in Vivado. The 'made current' note also clarifies the effect of the required name parameter.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource ('Create a new block design') and adds two concrete outcomes: the design becomes current and board_part may be set on the project. It is clearly distinguished in kind from siblings like save_bd_design, close_bd_design and validate_block_design, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.

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 BSP-installed precondition for board_part is a useful usage hint, and 'make it current' implies this is a starting step in the BD flow. However, it never states that a project must already be open, nor does it say what to do if a design of that name already exists — usage context is implied rather than stated.

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