pcb_create_nets_from_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses idempotency ('counted, not duplicated'), the cost model ('one IPC round-trip'), and that it acts on the active PCB. It stops short of stating preconditions (a PCB document must be active/focused) or behavior on error/invalid names.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and scope, then workflow context, then Args/Returns. Dense and structured with no filler; every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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?

Since an output schema exists, the Returns line is mildly redundant, but the workflow ordering, idempotency, and parameter rules make the definition complete enough to call correctly. Minor gap: no statement of what happens when no PCB document is active.

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 0% — the array items have no description — so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains what the names represent (from the compiled netlist) and that duplicates and empty strings are ignored. It does not mention format or matching constraints against schematic names.

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?

A specific verb (create) plus resource (net objects) plus scope (on the active PCB, only names not already present). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like pcb_create_net_class, pcb_create_diff_pair, and pcb_delete_net, and the opening line alone tells an agent what it produces.

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?

Explicitly situates the tool in a multi-step workflow (place footprints with pcb_place_components, create nets here, bind with pcb_bind_pad_nets, verify with proj_compare_sch_pcb) and explains the reason (Altium's ECO is not scriptable). It also implies safe re-runs by stating existing names are counted rather than duplicated.

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