disconnect_pins

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It clearly indicates that `dry_run=true` does not write and that setting it to false performs a write, and it highlights the millimetre unit behavior. While it omits details like reversibility or transaction requirements, it gives crucial preview-and-commit guidance for a mutation tool.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the main purpose in the first sentence and the dry-run workflow in the final sentence. However, the line 'Input schema: diptrace://schemas/tool-inputs' is somewhat redundant because the schema is already provided in the input-schema block, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 covers the core workflow and unit caveat, but given the tool's complexity and the presence of a transaction-oriented sibling set (begin_transaction, commit_transaction, etc.), it does not mention whether this operation requires an active live session or should be wrapped in a transaction. The selector parameter is also not elaborated, leaving a completeness gap despite the output schema.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains `dry_run` and `expected_sha256` in prose, but does not clarify the meanings or formats of `path`, `txid`, or `selector` beyond the hint 'selected pins'. The mention of 'selected schematic pins' implicitly references the selector but leaves its structure unspecified.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Disconnect selected schematic pins from their nets.' This clearly identifies the tool's action and differentiates it from siblings like connect_pins, which perform the opposite operation.

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 by detailing the safe workflow: use `dry_run=true` to preview, then set `dry_run=false` only after inspecting the preview and providing the expected SHA-256. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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