add_bus_entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the 45-degree geometry convention and that a dict with success status is returned, but omits mutation-relevant behavior: coordinate system origin, permissions, whether the entry can be undone/removed, and what happens if the position overlaps an existing wire.

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 the action, followed by a compact conceptual note, then args/returns/example. The prose is useful rather than padding, but the conceptual paragraph could be trimmed slightly since the example already demonstrates usage.

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 explained in depth, and the two parameters are thoroughly documented. The remaining gap is behavioral/mutation context (safety, reversibility, failure conditions) that no annotation covers for a write operation.

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%, yet the description fully compensates: it documents 'position' as an (x, y) tuple in mm and 'rotation' as degrees with the allowed values (0, 90, 180, 270) plus the default of 0, which the schema itself does not express.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Add a bus entry to the schematic') with a clear conceptual explanation that bus entries connect individual wires to bus wires. This implicitly differentiates it from the sibling add_wire and add_bus_wire tools by describing the object's role, though no sibling is named 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 description explains what a bus entry is and notes typical placement ('typically placed at a 45-degree angle'), which implies when it is appropriate to use. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs add_wire/add_bus_wire guidance and no stated prerequisites (e.g., a bus wire must already exist at that location).

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