rename_net

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context the annotations cannot: renaming onto an existing name merges nets and is refused unless allow_merge is true, and only_segment_with_pin narrows the mutation to a single pin stub. Minor gap is no mention of error/return behavior beyond the merge refusal.

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?

Front-loads the core rename and merge semantics, then handles the special-case parameter. The closing pin-swap recipe is arguably extra, but it earns its place as non-obvious usage guidance rather than padding.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema and rich annotations, the description supplies the net-merge rule and per-segment mode needed to invoke it safely. It stops short only on return/verification info, which is acceptable given no output schema exists.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: allow_merge's refusal semantics are stated and only_segment_with_pin's value format ('REF.PIN') plus its precise effect on scope are explained. old_name/new_name need no elaboration.

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+resource ('Rename a schematic net') and immediately scopes it ('all sheets where it has wires'). An agent can distinguish this from route_net or label_nets without opening the schema.

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 clear context for when each mode applies, including a concrete workflow for swapping two pins' nets. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives (e.g. label_nets, connect_pins) or state when not to use it, keeping it just short of 5.

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