set_pin_no_connect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals important traits: distances are always in millimetres regardless of document units, and the write operation is protected by a dry_run + SHA-256 verification flow. This goes beyond a simple action and warns about side effects. It does not mention permissions or undo behavior, so it is not a 5.

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 concise sentences. The first delivers the core purpose, the second adds a critical unit caveat, and the third explains the safe application flow. Every sentence carries essential information without redundancy. Ideal structure and length.

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 (6 parameters, no annotations) and that an output schema exists, the description covers key context: units, dry_run behavior, and the expected_sha256 contract. It lacks details on how selection works (selector parameter) and what the operation returns, but the output schema likely covers result shape. The safety-focused guidance compensates for many potential gaps.

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 input schema has zero descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains dry_run and expected_sha256, tying them together as a preview/apply safety mechanism. The first sentence implies semantics for no_connect ('set or clear'), but other parameters like selector, path, and txid are not explained. The description adds value but does not fully cover all six parameters.

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 tool's function: 'Set or clear intentional no-connect on selected schematic pins.' This uses a specific verb ('set or clear'), identifies the resource ('schematic pins'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect_pins and disconnect_pins. The purpose is immediately unambiguous.

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 operational guidance, especially the dry_run workflow: 'dry_run=true previews without writing' and 'Set dry_run=false only after inspecting the preview and pass its expected_sha256.' This tells the agent when to use the safe preview mode and when to apply changes. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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