connect_pins

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

Annotations only give generic hints (non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, non-openWorld), so the description adds real value: it discloses the geometry produced (a short named wire stub per pin, no wire crossing other parts), the labeling behavior, and a hard guard against merging existing nets. It does not describe the return value or error surface.

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?

Three tightly-packed sentences, front-loaded with the core action followed by the pin format and behavioral guarantees. Dense but every clause carries information; no padding.

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?

For a 4-param write tool with no output schema and only generic annotations, the description covers action, format, side effects, and one safety constraint. It would be stronger with a note on prerequisites (open design/sheet) and failure modes, but it is largely 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well: it documents the pins string format (PART.PIN or PART.PAD), the effect of labels=false (omit net labels), and the effect of allow_merge=true. It adds little for 'net' beyond the name, but covers the ambiguous 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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Connect schematic pins into a named net.' The word 'schematic' plus 'pins' clearly distinguishes it from PCB-routing siblings like route_net and add_trace, and from net-management siblings like rename_net and label_nets.

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 implies usage (connecting pins at the schematic level) and gives one operative constraint (refuses to merge nets unless allow_merge=true), but never states when to prefer this tool over siblings or what prerequisites exist. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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