route_close

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

Annotations already declare mutation (readOnlyHint false) and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: routing happens on a working copy where each route sees prior ones, all changes form one undo step, results are checked, and unroutable connections are listed rather than forced. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 front-loaded with the core action and packed with relevant detail without wasted clauses. Parenthetical examples and shorthand are dense but earn their place; it is appropriately sized for a complex routing operation.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers workflow, undo behavior, via default, and failure handling. However, it omits meaning for dry_run and width_mm and does not describe the return value format, leaving meaningful gaps for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains max_len_mm, widths (with a regex/mm example), and the no-vias default for allow_vias, but dry_run and width_mm are not described or given semantics anywhere, leaving two of five parameters opaque.

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 states a specific verb and resource: routing every short airwire up to max_len_mm, shortest first, using route_trace's router. It distinguishes itself by scope (local hops, passives, LED+resistor, bootstrap caps) and defaults (no vias), though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like route_trace, route_net, or autoroute.

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?

Usage is implied through the 'short connection' framing and the note that failures are left for later, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. It mentions route_trace's router without saying when to pick route_close over route_trace itself, leaving the agent to infer the alternative.

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