sch_stub_pins

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does most of it well: it discloses that this places objects (wires + net labels), the exact shape of each addition (wire from pin's electrical end along its orientation, terminated by a '<designator>_<pin_number>' label), and the downstream ERC consequence. It omits operational context that matters for a mutating tool — whether a schematic document must be active, idempotency on re-run, and undo/checkpoint implications.

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 what the tool does, followed by rationale, then a conventional Args/Returns block. Every sentence adds information; nothing is redundant with the name or title.

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 schematic-mutating tool with an output schema, the description covers mechanism, target selection, naming scheme, and the returned 'stubbed'/'failed' counts. The main missing piece is the precondition — which document/sheet must be active — which an agent would still have to discover.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: both parameters are explained in the Args block (stub length in mils with default 100, and a designator filter limiting which components are stubbed). Minor gap: the units/format of only_designators entries are implied rather than stated.

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 first sentence states a concrete verb+resource pair ('Draw a short wire stub + net label') and the exact target scope ('every unconnected schematic pin'). It is immediately distinguishable from read-only diagnostics like proj_get_unconnected_pins or audit_find_single_pin_nets because it clearly mutates the schematic.

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 says when to reach for it ('makes dangling pins explicit so ERC reports them as named single-pin nets rather than silent floats') and points at the diagnostic it builds on ('same connectivity check as proj_get_unconnected_pins'). It does not explicitly say when *not* to use it (e.g. read-only inspection instead of mutation), so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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