Connect pins by net

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and idempotentHint=false. The description adds critical behavioral details: draws real wire stubs, visible to ERC/ratsnest/autorouting, and that failing pins are reported individually. This goes beyond annotations.

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 three concise sentences, each adding value. First sentence states purpose and relation to sibling, second explains the effect, third covers error handling. No wasted words.

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?

Despite the tool being complex (bulk write, multiple pins), the description covers what it does, the resulting behavior, and error handling. An output schema exists to provide return value details, so completeness is high.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains parameters. The description adds context about the stub length default (10) and the net merging behavior. This is adequate for an agent to understand parameter usage.

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 clearly states it is a bulk variant of connect_pin_to_net, drawing real wire stubs and merging pins into one net. It distinguishes from the sibling tool easyeda_schematic_connect_pin_to_net by noting the bulk nature and error handling.

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 explicitly says 'Bulk variant of connect_pin_to_net' which guides when to use this tool (multiple pins) vs the singular sibling. It also mentions that failures are reported without aborting, providing usage nuance. However, it could be more explicit about when not to use.

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