add_schematic_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a mutation of the open schematic but says nothing about required state, whether the object is selectable/movable afterward, layer/grouping behavior, or failure modes when no document is open.

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 whole definition is short with no filler beyond a boilerplate 'Args:' block. Efficient, though the arg lines are near-duplicates of the schema.

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 3-required-param mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is under-specified: it omits document-state requirements, anchoring behavior, and any post-condition. The presence of an output schema excuses it from explaining return values, but little else is covered.

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, but it only restates the schema titles: 'text: Text string' and 'x_mm, y_mm: Position in mm'. The mm unit is the sole piece of added meaning, and it is largely echoed by the property titles 'X Mm'/'Y 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+resource: 'Add a free text object to the open schematic.' The 'schematic' scoping distinguishes it from board-level siblings like add_text and add_line, though it never names a sibling 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. a schematic must be open), and no routing to alternatives such as add_text (board) or add_local_label (labels). The only implied context is the word 'open schematic'.

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