connect_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 important behavioral traits: net creation when missing, dry_run preview mode, and the requirement for expected_sha256 after preview. This goes beyond what the schema conveys. However, it does not explain the behavior of allow_reconnect, whether existing connections are disturbed, or whether the operation is reversible.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core function and side effect. The safety workflow is stated compactly with code formatting. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant content.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema. The description gives the essential purpose and a critical safety workflow, which is sufficient for basic correct invocation. However, given the complexity, the unaddressed parameters (especially allow_reconnect) leave some gaps that the agent must infer from schema defaults alone.

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%. The description adds semantics for dry_run and expected_sha256 but does not explain net, pins, path, txid, or allow_reconnect. While net and pins are inferable from the verb, allow_reconnect remains ambiguous. The description compensates for only a fraction of the parameter space.

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: 'Connect part pins to a net; the net is created when missing.' This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from similar tools like disconnect_pins or set_pin_no_connect. It also notes the side effect of net creation, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 provides clear usage context: it is for connecting pins to nets, with the net auto-created if absent. It also gives a safety workflow ('dry_run=true previews without writing; set dry_run=false only after inspecting the preview and pass its expected_sha256'), which guides the agent on how to invoke it safely. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or specify when not to use it.

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