add_wire

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

The description discloses useful behavioral details beyond the name: coordinates are in millimeters and are snapped to the 1.27 mm grid, and 'Draw' implies a mutating operation. However, it does not describe what changes happen to the schematic file or any validation/failure behavior, and there are no annotations to fill that gap.

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 a single sentence that starts with the action and includes only necessary specifics. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 drawing command with five required parameters and an existing output schema, the core invocation data is present. The description still leaves usage-selection and side-effect details underspecified, making it minimally viable rather than fully 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?

The input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description's mention of 'two points', 'mm', and grid snapping adds real meaning to x1_mm, y1_mm, x2_mm, and y2_mm. It does not clarify schematic_path semantics or the coordinate reference/origin, so it only partially compensates for the schema's silence.

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 ('Draw') and a concrete resource ('a wire between two points'), making the tool's function unambiguous. The added details about millimeters and the 1.27 mm grid further distinguish this from sibling tools like add_component or add_label.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as trace_connections or add_label. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives; the intended usage is only weakly implied by the word 'wire'.

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