sch_route_wire_between_pins

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavioral traits—'deterministic' and 'Manhattan'—and the prerequisite that pins are 'placed.' However, it does not mention side effects such as whether existing wires are deleted or modified, which is a notable gap for a mutation tool.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the action verb and object, and contains no filler or redundant information.

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 core action is clearly stated and an output schema exists, so return values may be covered elsewhere. Still, with no annotations and no parameter guidance, the description leaves side effects and exact routing behavior under-specified for a tool that writes to the schematic.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain what 'ref1', 'pin1', 'ref2', 'pin2', or 'snap_to_grid' mean. It only hints at 'two placed symbol pins,' leaving the parameter semantics largely to their somewhat self-explanatory 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 uses a specific verb ('Route') and clearly identifies the resource and action: 'deterministic Manhattan wire segments between two placed symbol pins.' This distinguishes it from generic wire-adding tools and other routing tools in the sibling list.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you need to connect two placed schematic symbol pins with Manhattan wire segments. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it misses the 'exclusions' part of a 5.

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