sch_create_wire

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does state the drawing action and the key constraint that the wire is orthogonal, plus the point-string format. However, it does not disclose side effects, coordinate-system assumptions, or behavior on invalid input.

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 one efficient sentence that front-loads the operation and domain, then gives the essential point-string format. There is no filler, and every part contributes to correctly invoking the tool.

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 simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the core call details are present: action, domain, point format, and schema-defined defaults. Still, the lack of usage alternatives and behavioral side-effect disclosure leaves the description merely adequate rather than 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful format clarity by explaining that points is a space-separated 'x1 y1 x2 y2 ...' string, which goes beyond the schema's single example and helps the agent construct valid input.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 绘制正交导线 (draw an orthogonal wire) scoped to 原理图 (schematic). This clearly distinguishes it from PCB-oriented tools like pcb_route_track and from other schematic creation tools such as sch_create_component.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The domain qualifier 'in schematic' implies it is for schematic wiring rather than PCB routing, but the agent must infer the selection criteria instead of being told directly.

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