rename_net

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses dry-run behavior, the hash-verification requirement, duplicate-name protection, and the unit handling. However, it doesn't explain how duplicate-name protection resolves conflicts (reject vs. auto-suffix) or whether the operation is reversible, which would improve transparency.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and each sentence adds value: the rename action, the unit caveat, and the dry-run workflow. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers the key workflow and refers to the input schema, but it omits parameter semantics for several fields and does not mention transaction context or whether both PCB and schematic are affected simultaneously. Given the output schema exists, return value details are not needed, but the tool is not fully complete for safe invocation without more parameter guidance.

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, but leaves selector, path, txid, and new_name largely unexplained. New_name is inferable from the tool name, but the others are not clear without schema descriptions.

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 tool renames selected PCB or schematic nets and includes duplicate-name protection. This is a specific verb+resource+scope that distinguishes it from net-related siblings like list_nets, assign_nets_to_class, or add_net_label.

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 gives concrete usage guidance: use dry_run=true to preview, then inspect the preview and pass its expected_sha256 before setting dry_run=false. It also warns about the millimeter unit caveat. It doesn't explicitly discuss when not to use the tool or alternatives, but the workflow is clear.

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