sch_add_jumper

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

The annotation destructiveHint=true aligns with the 'Add' action, but the description adds no further behavioral context. It does not explain what a jumper symbol consist of, how pins or open_by_default affect the result, or any side effects beyond the annotation. The agent is left without insight into the tool's runtime behavior.

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 concise sentence with no fluff or redundant phrasing. It is front-loaded and efficient. While it is under-specified, that issue is addressed under completeness rather than conciseness.

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 tool has a 5-parameter schema with no parameter descriptions, a minimal annotation set, and moderate complexity (pins, open_by_default). The description only states the core action and omits placement, options, and behavior. Even with an output schema present, the input semantics and usage context are severely incomplete.

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?

With 5 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for missing parameter explanations. It does not mention x_mm/y_mm, pins, snap_to_grid, or open_by_default at all. The agent cannot infer parameter meanings or required values from the description.

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 specific action: 'Add a jumper symbol to the schematic.' It uses a precise verb and noun, distinguishing it from sibling tools like sch_add_symbol or sch_add_wire. The resource and location are explicit.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when a jumper symbol is appropriate, or why one would choose this over sch_add_symbol or other sch_add_* tools. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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