sch_place_net_label

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It identifies this as a placement mutation and says it returns a confirmation dictionary, but omits side effects, duplicate-label behavior, active-document preconditions, and whether invalid net names or coordinates are rejected.

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 definition is front-loaded with the core action, then uses compact Args and Returns sections with no wasted text. Each line contributes directly to understanding how to invoke 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?

For a simple schematic placement tool with an output schema, the parameter and return information is mostly sufficient. However, the lack of annotations means the description should do more to explain usage boundaries and mutation side effects.

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: all four parameters are documented with meaning, coordinate units in mils, and a clear 0-3 orientation mapping. It could improve by stating constraints such as allowed integer ranges or invalid-value behavior.

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 states a specific verb and resource: place a net label on the active schematic. It clearly identifies the object type, but does not explicitly distinguish it from related schematic placement siblings such as sch_place_port or sch_place_power_port.

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 by naming the active schematic, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives. There is no indication of when an agent should choose a net label instead of a power port, port, or other schematic label tool.

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