Add No Connect

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false, so the description's safety burden is lower. It adds useful context about requiring the position to match the pin endpoint exactly and mentions ERC suppression, but it does not disclose side effects like overwriting existing flags or behavior on invalid input, leaving some opacity.

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 description is two sentences and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence is slightly verbose with the capitalized 'PREFERRED' and repetition of 'exactly', but overall it is efficient and free of fluff.

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 are covered elsewhere. The description adequately covers the two usage modes and the intended outcome (ERC suppression). It could mention error conditions or the batched alternative, but for a simple mutation tool it is sufficiently complete.

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 100%, providing baseline 3. The description adds meaningful relationships between parameters, stating the preferred combination of componentRef + pinNumber and the alternative position, and emphasizes exact endpoint matching. This goes beyond the schema's individual field descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool adds a no-connect flag (X marker) to a pin, with a specific verb and resource, and explains it suppresses ERC 'Pin not connected' errors. This distinguishes it from other schematic editing tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling batch_add_no_connects.

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 gives clear guidance on how to specify the target pin (preferred componentRef + pinNumber, or alternative position) but does not mention when to choose this tool over batch_add_no_connects or any exclusion criteria. The context for use is implied (unused pins needing ERC suppression) but no alternatives are referenced.

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