add_local_label

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It notes the schematic must be open but says nothing about whether the label persists, requires a save, is undoable, or what happens on invalid coordinates.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the Args block is terse. Efficient overall, with no filler sentences, though the Args formatting is raw docstring output.

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 need not be described. However, for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, the description is silent on side effects, save requirements, and failure modes.

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 0%, but the Args block documents all three params: text as the net name, and x_mm/y_mm as position in mm. This compensates for the bare schema, though it adds no constraints, valid ranges, or units beyond 'mm'.

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 a local net label to the open schematic.' An agent can distinguish this from siblings like add_schematic_text or list_labels from the wording alone, though it doesn't explicitly call out which sibling to prefer.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus add_schematic_text, add_text, or other annotation tools. The only contextual cue is the implicit prerequisite of an 'open schematic.'

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