sch_modify_wire

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether unspecified properties are preserved, whether the change is undoable, or what happens if primitiveId is invalid.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than well-structured for an 8-parameter mutation tool. Brevity here reflects missing content, not efficiency.

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 mutation tool with 8 parameters, two required, no output schema, and no annotations explaining return or partial-update semantics, the description is too thin. It never mentions that only the wire's own properties are affected, that the document may be auto-switched, or that omitted fields are left unchanged.

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 each of the 8 parameters carries its own description (net, line, color, lineType, lineWidth, document, instance_id, primitiveId), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The one-line description adds no syntax, format, or behavioral detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 ('Modify') and resource ('existing wire'), so the agent knows it edits rather than creates or deletes a wire. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as sch_create_wire or sch_delete_wire, but the verb resolves that reasonably well.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (sch_create_wire, sch_delete_wire), no prerequisites, and no statement of what conditions must hold (e.g. wire must already exist in the target document). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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