sch_place_wires

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does well: it discloses that the target is the active schematic, that this is an additive write, and that results are partial-prone (placed/failed/total counts), plus why batching is faster (shared PreProcess/PostProcess and redraw). It omits reversibility/undo, grid-snapping behavior, and what conditions cause a segment to land in 'failed' — reasonable gaps, but with zero annotation coverage they are real.

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?

Well front-loaded: the one-line summary, the redirect to design_execute_plan, and the args come before the example. There is mild redundancy between 'NOT THE WAY TO WIRE A DESIGN', 'PREFER THIS over placing wires one segment at a time', and the '10-100x faster' justification, which restate the same point three ways.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still names the return shape (placed/failed/total), which is helpful for a batch tool where partial failure matters. Combined with the named alternative, the unit-bearing args, and a worked example, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only grid/undo semantics are absent.

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% and the schema itself is untyped (items are bare objects with integer additionalProperties), so the description must compensate — and it does, naming the keys x1, y1, x2, y2, giving the unit (mils), and providing a concrete 3-segment example. It stops short of saying whether extra keys are rejected, whether zero-length segments are legal, or ordering constraints.

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 plus a distinguishing scope ('Place MANY wire segments on the active schematic in ONE call'). It explicitly separates itself from design_execute_plan and notes there is no singular variant, so an agent can pick it out without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-not ('NOT THE WAY TO WIRE A DESIGN... design_execute_plan routes the whole sheet') and when ('use THIS tool for a few segments on a sheet that already exists'), naming the alternative tool. The 'PREFER THIS over placing wires one segment at a time' line removes any remaining ambiguity.

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