Batch Add And Connect

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

The annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the sequence of operations (place then connect) and the effect of labelType on all nets wired in this call. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the tool's side effects without contradicting the destructive 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 description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence contributes essential information (combined action, relationship to sibling tools, operational order, labelType behavior). No filler or redundancy.

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 moderately complex combined operation, the description covers the main behavioral contract, references sibling tools for parameter defaults, and notes labelType's scope. The output schema exists, so return values are not needed. However, it omits any mention of origin_x/origin_y (which are also undocumented in the schema), leaving a small but noticeable gap in completeness.

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 60%, with missing descriptions for origin_x and origin_y. The description compensates by explaining the components object's structure ('Each component is like batch_add_components plus an optional nets map {pin: netName}') and elaborating on labelType's enum semantics. This adds meaningful value beyond the schema, though the placement origin parameters remain undocumented.

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: 'Place multiple components AND wire their nets in a single call' — a specific verb and resource. It also explicitly distinguishes it from related sibling tools by mentioning 'Each component is like batch_add_components plus an optional nets map' and contrasts it with 'batch_connect', making it unambiguous when this combined operation is intended.

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 context: it is the 'fewest-round-trip way to build a subcircuit' and explains the internal order ('Components are placed first, then nets are connected via batch_connect'). While it doesn't explicitly say 'use batch_add_components alone if you don't need nets', the combined nature and reference to the alternative imply the right usage. A brief exclusion would make it perfect.

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