Assign Net To Class

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

Annotations already indicate the operation is destructive (destructiveHint=true) and non-read-only. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating the purpose. It does not mention what happens if the net is already assigned to another class, which would be useful but is not required given the 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?

A single sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the action, and contains no redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter tool with a complete schema and annotations, the description is sufficient. It could mention the consequences of reassigning a net (e.g., it is removed from any prior class), but the existing annotations cover the destructive nature, making the description adequately 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?

The input schema fully describes both parameters ('Name of the net' and 'Name of the net class'). The description does not add any parameter-level detail, so it provides no added value beyond the schema, resulting in the baseline score.

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 the action ('Assign a net to an existing net class') and its purpose ('to apply its specific design rules'). It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like create_netclass or add_net by emphasizing 'existing net class'.

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 gives clear context: assign an existing net to an existing net class. It implicitly differentiates from tools that create net classes (create_netclass) by saying 'existing', but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.

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