remove_no_connect

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive (destructiveHint=true), so the mutation is understood. The description adds valuable behavior: it removes every no-connect at the pin's position, not just one, which is important for users who may have stacked duplicates. This goes beyond what annotations or schema convey, and no contradiction exists.

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 five lines: a front-loaded action sentence, a clarifying sentence about duplicate behavior, then a clean Args section. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 params, destructive nature, 0% schema coverage), the description is complete: it states the action, duplicate semantics, parameter details, and default path behavior. An output schema exists, so return values are already defined; no further explanation is needed.

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 fully compensates by explaining each argument: reference examples 'U2', pin_name examples 'NC' or '3', and schematic_path default behavior when omitted. This provides meaning that the schema's bare property titles lack.

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?

Description begins with 'Remove no-connect flag(s) from a component pin' – a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like no_connect_pin (adds flags) and list_schematic_no_connects (lists flags) by focusing on removal. Additional detail about stacked duplicates clarifies the exact scope of removal.

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 clear context: use this tool to remove no-connect flags from a pin, and notes that repeated no_connect_pin calls stack duplicates, which this clears in one go. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not cases, but the implied usage compared to sibling tools is reasonably clear.

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