add_wire

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It covers the critical unit override, dry-run preview behavior, and the safety requirement for expected_sha256. It does not detail failure modes or side effects, but the guidance provided is substantial and directly useful.

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 three sentences, all front-loaded and each adding distinct value: the core operation, the unit caveat, and the dry-run workflow. There is no redundancy or extraneous 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 description captures the essential workflow and unit behavior, and an output schema exists, so return-value documentation is less critical. However, with 10 parameters and 0% schema coverage, many input semantics remain underdocumented, leaving the agent to guess about start/end structures and other fields. This makes the description adequate but not fully complete.

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 by explaining parameter meanings. It only clarifies dry_run, expected_sha256, and the millimeter units for points; it leaves net, start, end, path, txid, sheet, and hidden_power unexplained. This is insufficient for a 10-parameter tool with nested endpoint types.

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 action ('Add a wire to a schematic net') and specifies the target resource (schematic net). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like add_trace (PCB trace) and delete_wire by clarifying the schematic context and the official XML structure.

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?

Provides explicit operational guidance: all distances are in millimeters regardless of document units, and the dry_run workflow is described with a clear sequence (preview first, then set dry_run=false only after inspecting and passing expected_sha256). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, so a small deduction.

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