kicad.add_no_connect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable domain context that this is for ERC validation, but lacks operational details like error handling (what if no pin exists at x,y?), idempotency, or side effects. The output schema exists so return values don't need description.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. First sentence establishes the action and object; second provides the domain rationale (ERC). Perfectly front-loaded with no redundancy.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but has gaps. The ERC mention provides domain completeness, but the coordinate parameters (x, y) are undocumented despite 0% schema coverage, leaving critical operational context missing.

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% (only titles X/Y), so the description must compensate. While it mentions marking a 'pin', it fails to explain that x and y are schematic coordinates specifying the pin location, or what units/format are expected. The link between the parameters and the pin location is implicit at best.

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 clearly states the action ('Mark') and target ('unused pin'), and specifies the domain artifact ('no-connect flag'). It distinguishes from siblings like add_wire or add_component by focusing on ERC compliance for unconnected pins, though it doesn't explicitly state this is a schematic-level operation versus PCB.

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 implicit usage context by stating it's 'Required to pass ERC', indicating when to use it (for unused pins during electrical validation). However, it lacks explicit when-not guidance (e.g., don't use on pins that should be connected) or comparison to alternatives like actually wiring the pin.

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