save_schematic

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

Annotations only flag destructiveHint and non-idempotency; the description adds distinctly useful behavior: atomic write, automatic backup of existing files, syntax and connectivity validation before any write, UTF-8/LF normalization, and that unsaved GUI buffers are never persisted. That is real operational context an agent cannot infer from 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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then the workflow constraint, then the hash rule and validation/encoding guarantees. Every sentence carries information; the short lines add slight fragmentation but no filler.

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 destructive write tool with an output schema present, the description covers origin of content, concurrency/overwrite safety via SHA256 and backups, pre-write validation, and encoding behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'content' is defined as the full source from read_schematic including edits, and 'expected_sha256' is bound to the existing-file case with explicit instruction to omit it for new files. 'path' is the only field left implicit, which is minor given the rest.

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 ('Save a complete supported 5.9 schematic atomically') and enumerates the payload scope (components, wires, plots), which separates it from siblings like validate_schematic, build_schematic and clone_schematic. An agent can identify the tool without opening the 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?

'Supply full source from read_schematic with requested edits' tells the agent the intended read-then-write workflow, and the SHA256 rule disambiguates update versus create. It stops short of explicitly naming validate_schematic as an alternative or stating when not to call this, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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