Connect pin to net

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

Annotations already indicate write and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context: how connectivity is created (wire stub, net merging) and its effects (visible to ERC, ratsnest, autorouting), exceeding what annotations provide.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence defines the action, the second explains the behavior. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema and 6 parameters, the description covers the core behavior well. It explains the net merging effect and visibility to tooling. Minor omission: no mention of prerequisites (e.g., component must be placed) but overall 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 baseline is 3. The description mentions netName and pinNumber indirectly ('tagged with netName', 'exact coordinate') but adds no new meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 'Create real EasyEDA connectivity for a pin' with a specific action (draws wire stub, tags with netName). It clearly differentiates from siblings like 'easyeda_schematic_connect_pins_by_net' by focusing on a single pin connection.

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 use when connecting a pin to a net, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives. Usage context is implied but lacks clear guidance.

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