Prepare PCB net constraint mutation

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

The description goes meaningfully beyond the annotations by disclosing a safety preview, an API capability check, and an exact confirmation phrase requirement — a workflow shape that readOnlyHint=true alone would not convey. It stops short of describing what the preview payload contains or what happens if the capability check fails.

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?

Two tight sentences with the primary capability front-loaded and the non-destructiveness caveat as the closer. No redundant restatement of the title or schema fields.

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 17-parameter tool with a nested target object and no output schema, the description leaves notable gaps: it does not explain the returned preview/phrase structure or which parameter subsets apply to netClass versus differentialPair versus lengthGroup. Adequate to identify the tool, but not fully sufficient for correct invocation without reading the schema closely.

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 94%, so nearly every parameter (clearance, positiveNet/negativeNet, targetLengthMm, differentialGap, etc.) is already documented in the schema, including which entity type each applies to. The description adds no conditional guidance about which parameters are required for which action/entity combination, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Prepares creating, modifying, or deleting') and names all three target resources that map exactly to the entity enum (net classes, differential pairs, equal length groups). This clearly separates it from read-only siblings such as easyeda_get_pcb_net_classes and from the mutation-executing easyeda_confirmed_action.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Does not modify the PCB until confirmed' tells the agent this is a pre-step, but it never names the follow-up tool (easyeda_confirmed_action / easyeda_get_mutation_result) or says when to pick this over easyeda_prepare_pcb_track_via or easyeda_prepare_drc_edit. An agent must infer the two-phase workflow.

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