lib_split_pin_functions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses the transformation: alternate names become a function list, `PRIMARY` remains visible, pins without `/` are untouched, and it returns `pins_processed`. It does not state whether this mutates or persists the library symbol, whether an undo is available, or what happens if no current symbol is selected.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by precise behavioral detail and a short return value section. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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 parameterless library operation, the description covers scope, transformation behavior, edge-case handling, and return shape. The main omission is mutation/persistence behavior, which matters more because no annotations are present, but the core information needed to invoke it is present.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The schema is empty and schema description coverage is effectively complete, making the baseline of 4 appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it splits slash-delimited pin names into pin function lists for the current library symbol. It clearly states what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish this operation from related sibling tools such as lib_get_pin_list or lib_add_pins.

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?

Usage is implied by the condition that pin names contain `PRIMARY/ALT1/ALT2/...`, and the description notes that pins without `/` are unchanged. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternative tools for related pin-editing tasks.

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