wire_pins_to_net

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

The description goes beyond the minimal annotations by disclosing key behaviors: 'one file write' (file modification), 'short stub and a shared net label' (how the wiring is done), and the auto_pwr_flag behavior ('Auto-place PWR_FLAG when net has power_in but no power_out'). This provides useful behavioral context. It does not mention failure modes or preexisting conditions, but the disclosed details are significant, so a 4 is warranted.

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 compact and well-structured. It opens with a clear purpose, then a one-sentence behavioral summary, followed by a concise Args list. Every sentence adds value, no filler. The parameter explanations are front-loaded after the purpose, making it easy to scan.

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?

The description covers all parameters and key behaviors, and an output schema exists (so return values are not needed). However, it leaves a slight ambiguity about whether the net label is created or must already exist. It also doesn't discuss what happens if pins are already wired, but given the tool's scope and the presence of an output schema, this is a minor gap.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates excellently by explaining each parameter with examples, units, defaults, and behavior. It clarifies the pins dict format, gives example label text, lists direction options, specifies stub_length in mm with default, explains auto_pwr_flag's condition, and notes schematic_path is optional. This is far beyond what the schema provides.

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 description opens with a specific verb+resource phrase: 'Wire multiple component pins to the same net label.' This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like add_wires (which adds generic wires), add_label (which adds labels without wiring), and connect_pins (which likely connects pins without a net label). The method is clarified with 'Wires each pin with a short stub and a shared net label, one file write.'

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to connect multiple pins to a shared net label. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state 'use this instead of X,' but the purpose is evident. The one-file-write note also hints at efficiency, giving some usage context. There are no exclusions or alternative references, so a 4 is appropriate.

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