Highlight or clear PCB net

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description usefully confirms the effect is confined to canvas display rather than persistent board data. However, it leaves out meaningful behavioral questions: does highlighting a new net replace the previous highlight or accumulate, is the highlight transient, and does the operation fail on an unknown net name (relevant given idempotentHint=false).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the two modes are stated efficiently. Slightly terse for the behavioral ambiguity it leaves, but nothing is wasted.

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 3-parameter, annotation-covered, non-destructive tool with no output schema, the essentials are present, but the agent is left unsure about highlight accumulation vs replacement, handling of unknown net names, and the interaction between net and clear. These gaps are small but relevant to correct invocation.

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 67%: the net and clear parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description only restates them ("specified net", "clears all highlighted nets"). timeoutMs is undocumented in both places, so the description adds little beyond the schema and does not specify whether net is ignored when clear=true.

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?

"Visually highlights a specified net on the EasyEDA Pro PCB canvas" names a specific verb (highlight), resource (net), and scope (PCB canvas), plus the inverse mode "clears all highlighted nets." The visual/UI nature implicitly separates it from data-reading siblings like easyeda_find_net or easyeda_get_pcb_net_report, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 explains the two modes but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., whether an open PCB document is required), and no alternatives such as navigating to a net versus highlighting it. An agent must infer the calling context entirely.

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