Kicad Sch Add Wire

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only discloses the coordinate system (mm, Y-down). It does not say whether the file at 'path' is modified in place, whether this is destructive/irreversible, what happens on overlapping wires, or any permission requirement.

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 efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded and the coordinate caveat appended. It is appropriately terse, though that terseness is partly the source of the documentation gaps.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a 5-required-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions, the definition omits the path semantics, preconditions, and side effects an agent needs to call it correctly.

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% across 5 required parameters. The description clarifies that x1/y1/x2/y2 are mm coordinates with Y pointing down, which is genuinely useful, but it never explains 'path' (file path? project path?) or which pair is the segment start versus end.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a wire segment to a schematic'), which is clear on its own. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like kicad_sch_add_label or kicad_sch_add_symbol, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no preconditions (e.g., the schematic must already exist or be open), and no exclusions. The parenthetical only describes coordinate conventions.

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