sch_set_net_tie

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly succeeds: it discloses the semantic effect (shorts nets for routing while keeping logical nets separate so ERC/DRC treat the join as intentional), that it sets ComponentKind, and the behavioral difference between the two modes (BOM visibility and survival through sync). It omits whether the change requires a save/compile or is reversible.

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, then rationale, then Args/Returns blocks. Every sentence adds information, though the parenthetical net-tie explanation is slightly longer than strictly needed for an expert agent.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, precondition, both parameter values, the ComponentKind effect, and the return shape including NOT_FOUND. Only the persistence/save implications are left unstated.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: designator is explained with a concrete example ("NT1") and mode's default plus both accepted values and their consequences are spelled out even though the schema has no enum. Minor gap: it doesn't clarify designator-vs-unique-id disambiguation.

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 ("Mark a placed schematic component as a net tie") and then defines the concept so the agent knows exactly what state change results. No sibling tool performs net-tie conversion, and the description makes that scope unambiguous.

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?

Gives a clear precondition: "Use on a dedicated net-tie footprint/symbol you have already placed and wired." It tells the agent the required prior state but offers no alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance (e.g. how to undo, or what to do if the component isn't wired).

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