Create a new empty Packet Tracer network. Set discard_current to true to replace the current workspace without saving.
Create an empty network; occupied workspace requires explicit discard_current. / 新建空网络，替换现有网络须明确指定。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| discard_current | No | Discard the current workspace without saving. / 放弃当前工作区。 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds the crucial detail of what is destroyed (the existing network is replaced) plus the safety interlock requiring an explicit discard flag. This is real added value beyond the annotations, though the failure behavior when discard_current is omitted is only implied.
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 compact sentence front-loads the action and immediately follows with the conditional constraint. No filler, and the bilingual restatement adds no ambiguity.
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 one-parameter tool with full schema coverage and destructive annotations, the description supplies the essential replacement semantics and the guard condition. Only the outcome when discard_current is false on an occupied workspace is left implicit.
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 100%, so baseline is 3; the description goes further by stating the condition under which discard_current must be set, giving the parameter operational meaning rather than just a definition.
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 ("Create an empty network") and clarifies the replacement scope. It does not name the sibling pt_open_network, which is the obvious alternative for working with an existing network, so the distinction is left implicit.
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 concrete usage rule: if the workspace is occupied, discard_current must be explicitly set. It lacks explicit when-not guidance or a named alternative (e.g., use pt_open_network to load an existing file), which keeps it from a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.