Add Schematic Wire

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

The annotations already mark this as destructive (destructiveHint=true). The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: snapToPins corrects float imprecision by snapping endpoints to exact pin coordinates, and intermediate waypoints are never snapped. This clarifies the tool's actual behavior. It doesn't discuss undoability or side effects, but the annotation covers the core destructive nature.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a mandatory prerequisite, then snapping behavior, a routing example, and a final clarification. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is logical and easy to follow.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (coordinate-based wiring with snapping nuances), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, prerequisite steps, snapping behavior, intermediate waypoint handling, and a concrete example. With a present output schema and full parameter coverage, the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for all four parameters. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it explains how waypoints are interpreted (first/last snapped, intermediate not) and gives a routing example. It also names snapToPins default behavior and clarifies that it only affects endpoints. This adds real value to the parameter understanding.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Draws a wire on the schematic between two or more coordinate points.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings like delete_schematic_wire and route_trace by specifying the schematic context and the coordinate-based approach.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Always call get_schematic_pin_locations first to get the approximate pin coordinates, then pass them as the first and last waypoints.' It also explains how to route around components with intermediate waypoints, giving a concrete example. This is clear, actionable guidance with no ambiguity.

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