Connect To Net

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so mutation is known. The description adds valuable context by detailing the exact operations (adding wire stub and net label) and the response fields (pin_location, label_location, wire_stub) for verification. It does not contradict annotations and provides more behavioral detail than just relying on the hints.

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, with the action front-loaded and the response explanation following. Every sentence contributes value without fluff 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?

Given the output schema and annotations, the description is complete enough for a mutation tool. It explains the action, the response, and provides confirmability. It does not explicitly mention preconditions like component existence or net validity, but these are likely obvious or covered by the schema/error handling.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so all four parameters are already explained. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 ('connect'), a resource ('component pin to a named net'), and the mechanism ('adding a wire stub and net label at the exact pin endpoint'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like add_schematic_wire or add_schematic_net_label by combining both actions on a specific pin.

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: when you need to connect a component pin to a named net with a visual stub and label. It implies a single-pin, single-net scenario, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. This falls short of a 5 which requires explicit when/when-not/alternatives.

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