generate_bd_wrapper

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that it generates a wrapper, adds it to sources_1 by default, sets it as top, and updates compile order. It omits overwrite behavior, required project state, and error handling.

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?

Purpose and default behavior are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence efficiently documents the exact Tcl sequence being performed. There is no wasted text.

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?

The description is strong on side effects but lacks prerequisites such as needing an open project and an existing block design. With no output schema, it also does not say what the tool returns.

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 bd_name and set_top are already documented. The description adds only the default value of set_top, which is also present in the schema, so 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 and resource: generate the HDL wrapper for a block design, with the default side effects clearly identified. An agent can distinguish this from sibling block-design creation or validation tools.

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 implies it is used after a block design exists, and describes the default behavior, but it does not explicitly state prerequisites, when not to use it, or which sibling tools should precede it.

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