manage_wires

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. It says nothing about side effects, reversibility of wire removal, permissions, or how removal interacts with connected components. The 'Returns: Dictionary with wire data or error' line is the only behavioral hint.

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 leading sentence is well front-loaded and the Args block is scannable. The 'Returns' section is redundant given an output schema exists, and the docstring-style formatting adds length without proportionate value.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the definition covers parameter roles adequately and an output schema covers returns. But it lacks any behavioral disclosure about the destructive 'remove' operation and any routing against the many wire-related siblings, leaving meaningful gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must compensate, and it does list every parameter with its role and conditional requirement ('required for add'/'required for remove'), which the schema does not convey. However, it omits format details such as start/end being [x, y] coordinate pairs, so it only partially compensates.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Manage wires (add, remove)') and enumerates the two operations. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the overlapping sibling 'add_wire', leaving ambiguity about why both exist.

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 tool versus siblings like add_wire, connect_components, or add_bus_wire. The action parameter implies two modes, but nothing tells the agent which situations call for each or when an alternative tool is preferable.

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