edit_schematic_wire

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic operation. It omits important traits such as whether the wire segment overrides existing connections, if it checks for electrical rule violations, or any side effects on the schematic file.

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 a single, clear sentence that directly conveys the tool's action. It contains no filler or redundant information, earning its place efficiently.

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 (editing a schematic file) and the absence of annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error handling, or any context about the schematic environment. However, the presence of an output schema (not shown) partially mitigates the need for return value documentation, but other contextual gaps remain.

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 schema description coverage is only 20% (only file_path described). The description mentions 'between two points' but does not elaborate on the meaning of start_x, start_y, end_x, end_y or their coordinate system, leaving the agent without essential insight beyond the schema's parameter names.

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 specifies the action ('Add a wire segment') and the resource ('between two points in a schematic'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like edit_schematic_place (place component) and edit_schematic_remove (remove element), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other schematic editing tools. There are no prerequisites, no conditions for use, and no mention of when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer context.

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