Create Netclass

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation/destructive nature is known. The description adds the behavior of optional immediate net assignment, which is useful, but it does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting existing net classes or failure conditions. It neither contradicts annotations nor adds rich behavioral context.

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 a single sentence with no redundant information. It front-loads the primary action and adds the optional capability efficiently.

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 create tool with many optional design-rule parameters, the description covers the core purpose and optional net assignment. The presence of an output schema makes return-value documentation unnecessary. It is slightly incomplete in that it doesn't note whether design rules are optional or if there are constraints on net class names, but this is minor given the schema.

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 the schema already documents all 10 parameters. The description's phrases 'custom design rules' and 'optionally assigning nets' summarize the parameter groups but do not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') with a clear resource ('new net class') and also mentions key capabilities ('custom design rules', 'optionally assigning nets'). This distinguishes it from similar tools like add_net_class by highlighting the design-rule aspect.

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 usage when you want to create a net class with design rules, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like add_net_class or assign_net_to_class. There is no when-not or alternative guidance, making the usage context inferred rather than explicit.

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