Add schematic wire

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the global net-merging semantics of netName and the NET_COLLISION guard, including the precise boundary of what it protects ('touched points... not mid-segment crossings'). It stops short of stating permission requirements or failure/rollback behavior.

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 tight clauses with no filler, front-loaded on the core action and connectivity model. Slightly dense/packed but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the collision/netName semantics are covered. But for a non-idempotent write tool with confirmWrite gating, style parameters go unexplained and there is no mention of permission or side-effect scope, leaving meaningful 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?

Schema description coverage is only 17%, so the description bears most of the burden. It explains netName semantics well, but color, lineType, lineWidth are entirely undocumented in both schema and description, and the points structure is only hinted at via 'coordinates/pins'. A majority of parameters remain ambiguous.

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 and resource ('Add a wire connecting schematic coordinates/pins') and clarifies it produces real native connectivity, which differentiates it from a purely visual line tool. It does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby siblings like easyeda_schematic_connect_pin_to_net or connect_pins_by_net, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 netName semantics ('same netName connects pins globally; separate stubs merge into one net, no label needed') implicitly tells the agent when this tool is the right choice for building nets. However it never names or compares against the alternative connection tools in the sibling list, leaving the when-to-use-this-vs-that decision to inference.

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