route_connections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so strongly. It discloses the preview/write gate, hash confirmation requirement, bounded rip-up/retry, clearance rule resolution logic, non-DRC-sign-off limitation, and millimeter units regardless of document settings.

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?

Six tight sentences, each adding distinct value: scope, clearance behavior, result caveat, units, schema pointer, and safety workflow. The core action is front-loaded, with no filler or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and that an output schema exists, the description covers the critical operational context: dry-run safety, expected_sha256, clearance rule behavior, and unit normalization. It could be more complete by explaining the ordering and connections parameters, but the overall context is strong.

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. It explains dry_run, expected_sha256, and implies max_ripup_attempts via 'bounded rip-up/retry,' but it leaves path, txid, ordering, connections, and ripup_retry semantically unexplained. The external schema reference helps structure but does not convey meaning.

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: 'Route multiple connections sequentially with bounded rip-up/retry.' This clearly distinguishes it from singular tools like route_connection and route_net by emphasizing multi-connection sequential scope.

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 clear workflow guidance: dry_run=true previews without writing, and dry_run=false should only be used after inspecting the preview and passing its expected_sha256. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, but the usage context is well defined.

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