pcb_set_net_class

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

The description adds a behavioral caveat—'when the runtime supports it'—which goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation. However, it does not disclose what happens when runtime lacks support, whether an existing net class is overwritten, or any side effects. The destructiveHint annotation already flags mutation, but description adds minimal context.

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 description is only a single sentence, which seems concise but is actually under-specified. It omits essential context about runtime support and net class assignment behavior, making it not appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the simple 2-parameter tool, the description provides almost no operational context. It does not explain the 'runtime' condition, failure modes, or relation to other net class tools. While an output schema exists (covering return values), the description remains incomplete for safe 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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not compensate for it. It never mentions net_name or class_name, nor how they relate to the assignment operation. The parameter names are self-explanatory from titles, but the description adds no meaning beyond 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?

The description clearly states the operation ('Assign a net class') and implies the target is a net via the net_name parameter. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like route_set_net_class_rules by focusing on assigning a class to a net rather than defining rules. However, the phrase 'when the runtime supports it' introduces ambiguity about conditions.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites beyond the vague 'when the runtime supports it.' It lacks context about typical scenarios or exclusions.

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