sch_create_wire

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, which tells the agent this is a non-destructive but non-idempotent write (repeat calls create duplicate wires). The description adds no behavioral context of its own — no side effects, unit/coordinate conventions, or document-switching implications beyond what the schema already documents. With the safety profile covered by annotations, the description contributes nothing extra.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource lead. It is appropriately sized, though maximally terse for a 7-parameter mutation 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 7-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description is thin: it omits net assignment intent, the multi-instance requirement (instance_id), and the auto-switch behavior of document. The rich schema and safety annotations compensate partially, leaving it minimally adequate.

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 100% and every field (net, line, color, document, lineType, lineWidth, instance_id) is documented in the schema itself. The description's 'series of coordinate points' loosely maps to the line parameter but adds no syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 a specific verb (create), resource (wire), and scope (in the schematic), clearly separating it from sch_modify_wire and sch_delete_wire. It also pins the input dimension ('defined by a series of coordinate points'). It stops short of naming siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the obvious alternatives sch_modify_wire or sch_delete_wire. The agent must infer routing purely from the tool name.

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