Batch Add No Connects

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation. The description adds that it 'silence[s] ERC' and clarifies the data structure, but does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting existing flags or failing on invalid pins. This meets the baseline but offers limited extra behavioral insight.

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, front-loaded with the core action and purpose, followed by a clarifying parameter note. No redundancy, filler, or unnecessary detail.

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?

With annotations covering safety semantics, an output schema present, and 100% parameter schema coverage, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it does not address idempotency or failure behavior (e.g., what happens if a pin already has a no-connect flag), which would be useful but not essential for a simple batch operation.

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% for both parameters. The description's mention of 'pins' being a list of {componentRef, pinName} merely restates the schema definition without adding new meaning. Thus the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action: 'Add no-connect (X) flags to multiple pins in one call'. It specifies the resource (pins), the purpose ('mark intentionally unconnected pins and silence ERC'), and distinguishes itself from the singular 'add_no_connect' sibling by emphasizing batch operation.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to mark multiple pins as no-connect to silence ERC. It implies batch usage but does not explicitly exclude the singular 'add_no_connect' or other alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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