sch_place_port

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the target ('active schematic'), the consequence that the name maps to a net name, and that a confirmation dictionary is returned, but it says nothing about prerequisites (open/active document), duplicate-name behavior, or side effects on the netlist/ERC. Useful but incomplete for a mutation tool.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a compact Args list and a short Returns line. Every line carries information given the 0% schema coverage, though the stylized docstring formatting is slightly heavier than needed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, and the parameter documentation is complete enough to invoke the tool correctly, including units and enumerations. The remaining gap is behavioral context (document preconditions, duplicate handling, interaction with sch_set_units), which an agent would have to infer.

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%, yet the description documents all five parameters: meaning of name (maps to net name), units for x/y (mils), and the full allowed value sets for style and io_type. This compensates well for the empty schema; only the defaults ('right', 'bidirectional') are left to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Place a port'), names the target surface ('active schematic'), and gives the purpose ('inter-sheet connectivity'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as sch_place_cross_sheet_connector, sch_place_power_port, or sch_place_sheet_entry, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'for inter-sheet connectivity' implies the design situation where this tool applies, and 'on the active schematic' implies the precondition that a schematic document must be active. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative among the many sch_place_* port/sheet-entry tools.

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