connect

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

Annotations provide no behavioral hints (e.g., destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description only adds 'Resolves pin positions automatically'. It does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing wires) or permissions, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Three concise sentences, each serving a purpose: main action, automatic resolution, and waypoint usage. No unnecessary words.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's operation without needing to detail return values. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., schematic exists) or error cases, but is still reasonably 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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the overall purpose and the role of waypoints, going slightly beyond the schema alone.

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 action ('Connect two component pins with wire(s)') and a key feature ('Resolves pin positions automatically'), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like 'add_component' or 'trace_net'.

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 explains when to use waypoints ('For a straight horizontal or vertical connection, waypoints can be omitted') and their role, providing clear context for parameter usage, though it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools.

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