sch_swap_pins

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Record an intent' suggests a deferred or bookkeeping action rather than an immediate swap, but it does not disclose side effects, validation behavior, whether the schematic is modified, or what the output represents.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and easily scannable, though its brevity contributes to missing information in other dimensions.

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 three required parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, but the description gives only the high-level intent. It omits when to use it, what happens after recording, how pins are specified, or any relation to pin-swap-related sibling tools. The output schema exists but does not replace behavioral context.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only adds that the action is 'for a component' (component_ref), but gives no meaning for pin_a/pin_b, expected formats (e.g., reference designator, pin numbers), or how the pins are identified.

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 ('Record') and a specific resource ('pin-swap back-annotation intent') for a component, making the core purpose clear. It is distinguishable from sibling sch_swap_gates, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sch_list_swappable_pins.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites like checking swappable pins first. The description implies a use case but provides no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool references.

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