Prepare Schematic Wire Mutation

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

The description adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: it performs preview, coordinate validation, an affected-connections check, and returns an exact confirmation phrase, and it explicitly states no write occurs until confirmation. readOnlyHint=true is consistent with that two-phase claim since this call itself does not mutate. It stops short of explaining how long a prepared preview stays valid or what identifies it later, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

A single sentence plus a short safety clause, with the operation scope front-loaded and the non-writing guarantee immediately after. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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 13-parameter, nested-object, two-phase mutation tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential workflow, the safety guarantee, and the confirmation-phrase output. What is missing is the handoff to the confirm and result tools and any note on per-action parameter requirements, which matters given four distinct action modes.

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 92%, so the schema already documents nearly all 13 parameters, including the nested target object and the action enum. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, such as which fields are required for which action (e.g. wireId for modify/delete, coordinates for createWire, net plus x/y for addNetLabel). With the high coverage baseline, a 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Prepares') plus the exact resource ('schematic wire') and enumerates the four supported mutations: create, modify, delete, and net label placement. That level of specificity distinguishes it from sibling prepare tools such as easyeda_prepare_schematic_component, easyeda_prepare_schematic_port, and easyeda_prepare_schematic_bus without the agent needing to open any schema.

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 phrase 'Does not write until confirmed' correctly signals this is a mandatory pre-step before any real mutation, which implies when to use it. However, it never names the confirmation tool (easyeda_confirmed_action) or the result-retrieval tool (easyeda_get_mutation_result) that the workflow clearly requires, and it gives no when-not guidance, leaving the agent to infer the next step from the sibling list.

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