sch_place_bus_entry

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the placement constraint (start on bus, end on wire, typically 45 degrees) and that the return is a confirmation dictionary, but it says nothing about whether the operation is undoable, what permissions or active-document state it requires, or what happens if coordinates are off-grid/off-bus.

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?

Front-loaded with the core definition, followed by a clarifying sentence and a clean Args/Returns block. The middle explanatory sentence earns its place by teaching the bus-entry concept, though the definition sentence already implies much of it, making it marginally redundant.

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 geometry-placement tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, geometric constraints, unit semantics for all four params, and the return type. Missing only attributes like undoability or required active-document context, which keeps it from a 5.

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 0% (properties only have bare titles like 'X1'), so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It supplies that: x1,y1 are start coordinates in mils typically on the bus, x2,y2 are end coordinates in mils typically on the wire — giving both units and semantic role. It doesn't cover invalid values or rounding, so not a 5.

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?

States a precise verb+resource ('Place a bus entry') plus the geometric form ('45 degree stub') and what it connects (a wire to a bus). The parenthetical immediately distinguishes it from generic placement siblings like sch_place_bus or sch_place_line.

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 a clear use context ('angled stubs that tap a single-signal wire off a bus line') and geometry prerequisites ('Start point should sit on the bus; end point should sit on the wire'), which is effectively when-to-use guidance. It doesn't name a sibling alternative or state when not to use it, 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.