pcb_lock_net_routing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it states that locked primitives get ``Moveable=False``, that the autorouter/editor respect that flag only when 'Protect Locked Objects' is enabled, and that ``lock=False`` reverses the operation. It could still mention permission requirements or side effects on selection/UI state, but the behavioral disclosure is substantial.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and workflow, then uses structured Args and Returns sections. Despite its length, every section adds actionable information for calling and interpreting the 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?

The tool is a multi-parameter PCB mutation with no annotations, no schema descriptions, and an output schema. The description compensates by explaining the workflow, behavioral flag semantics, parameter meanings, and return fields, leaving nothing critical unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains net names are case-sensitive, ``lock=True`` sets ``Moveable=False``, ``lock_components`` also locks any component with a pad on a matched net, and default behavior is documented.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: lock or unlock track / arc / via primitives on a list of nets. It clearly distinguishes the operation from sibling PCB mutation tools and leaves no ambiguity about what is being changed.

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?

It gives a concrete standard workflow: use before autorouting to protect power, ground, clock, and oscillator nets, then set ``lock=False`` afterward. It does not name a competing sibling tool as an alternative, but the usage context and exclusions are strong enough that an agent knows when this tool is appropriate.

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