sch_place_harness_connector

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Place" implies a document mutation, and the description does say the return dict includes success/geometry fields, but it omits whether an undo checkpoint is created, what happens if no sheet is active, or whether existing objects are affected.

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 action, followed by a compact conceptual note, then Args and Returns blocks. Every line carries signal and there is no 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 low-complexity placement primitive with an output schema already documenting the return shape, the description covers action, geometry semantics, and optionality adequately. The remaining gap is preconditions (active document/sheet required) and routing to alternative connector tools.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it assigns units (mils) to x/y/width/height, explains what the geometry represents (bottom-left corner, rectangle size), and marks harness_type as optional. It does not mention the non-obvious defaults of 500/800 mils for width/height.

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 specific verb and resource ("Place a harness connector on the active schematic sheet") and adds a conceptual explanation of what harness connectors do. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as sch_place_cross_sheet_connector, sch_place_bus, or sch_place_port.

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 only implied: placement happens on "the active schematic sheet," so an agent can infer an active document is required. There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sch_place_cross_sheet_connector or a plain bus, and no stated prerequisites or failure conditions.

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