assign_nets_to_class

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It explicitly states that all distances are in millimetres regardless of document units, a non-obvious unit quirk, and that dry_run=true previews without writing, while false requires expected_sha256. This gives a clear safety workflow, though it does not mention failure modes or what happens if the class doesn't exist.

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 front-loaded with purpose and keeps the safety workflow concise. However, the sentence 'Input schema: diptrace://schemas/tool-inputs' is redundant since the input schema is already provided, and it adds no value for the agent. This wastes a sentence without earning its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers core behavior (assignment, unit quirk, dry-run workflow) but leaves gaps: no guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives, no explanation of path/txid/selector semantics, and no side-effect detail beyond 'assign.' The output schema may cover return values, but overall completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains dry_run and expected_sha256, and 'selected nets' implies the selector, but it says nothing about path, txid, or class_name beyond the obvious name. Given 6 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is only partial compensation.

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 opens with 'Assign selected PCB or schematic nets to an existing net class,' which clearly identifies the action (assign), the resource (nets), and the destination (existing net class). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rename_net or update_net_class_rules, which address different operations.

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 clearly states the operation and provides a workflow: use dry_run=true first, inspect preview, then set dry_run=false with expected_sha256. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of 'existing net class' implies a contrast with class creation or rule updates, making usage reasonably clear.

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