connect_pins

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It communicates that the operation mutates net membership, but does not disclose whether existing pin connections are replaced or appended, whether pins can belong to multiple nets, or what happens if the net or pin does not exist.

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 states the action, the resource, and an example pin format with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and is appropriately compact.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no parameter descriptions in the schema, this one-line description leaves important gaps: connection semantics, failure behavior, and output/return information. The existing output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the behavioral and parameter context is still under-specified.

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 for the undocumented net and pins parameters. It gives a helpful example format for pins ('U1.3', 'R1.1') but does not explain what a net identifier looks like, whether it is a name or an ID, or how the array elements map to actual pins.

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 names a specific verb ('Connect'), a precise resource ('semantic pins'), and a target ('an existing net'). The phrase 'existing net' also distinguishes this from the sibling create_net, so an agent can tell them apart immediately.

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 states the precondition that the net must already exist, implying this tool is for modifying an existing net rather than creating one. It does not explicitly name siblings such as create_net or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for correct selection.

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