add_bus_wire

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return shape (success status + wire info) and the visual/styling semantics of a bus wire, but omits persistence behavior (whether the schematic must be saved), permissions, or undo semantics for what is a write operation.

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 one-line summary, then purpose, then Args/Returns/Example. Slightly long but every section earns its place, and the worked 8-bit bus example is genuinely useful.

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 output schema exists so the Returns note is redundant but harmless. For a mutation tool with zero annotations, the description should at least state whether changes are persisted to the schematic or require a subsequent save; that gap keeps it at minimum-viable.

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%, so the description must compensate: it does so by giving the (x, y) tuple form and the mm unit for both start and end, plus noting ctx is an optional MCP context for progress reporting.

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 wire between two points') with scope clarified by contrasting bus wires against regular wires, which cleanly separates it from the sibling add_wire.

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?

It explains what a bus wire represents (multi-bit data/address buses, thicker styling), which implies when it applies, but never explicitly says when to prefer this over add_wire or how it pairs with add_bus_entry/add_bus_label.

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