Prepare Net

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

Annotations already say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and "Insert" is consistent with a write, so there is no contradiction. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it does not say the directive is appended to the schematic file, that existing directives are preserved, that calls are non-idempotent (which annotations flag with idempotentHint=false), or whether a save is needed for it to take effect.

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 short sentence with zero filler, front-loading the action and the artifact. It is efficient, though its brevity is a symptom of under-specification rather than of disciplined editing.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 83% of parameters undocumented anywhere, this description is far too thin. The only mitigating factor is that annotations cover the safety profile, but the agent still lacks the information needed to use the ports meaningfully.

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 only 17% (just workspace_root), and the description supplies no meaning for rin, rout, source, output, or schematic_path — the five undocumented parameters that actually define the directive's ports. Beyond the phrase "network-parameter directive" there is nothing tying the parameters to ports or node names.

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 gives a verb and a resource ("Insert a .net network-parameter directive"), so the agent knows it writes a SPICE directive, but it never says what a .net / network-parameter directive does or where it lands (a schematic). It also does nothing to separate it from the large family of sibling prepare_* directive tools such as prepare_ac, prepare_save, or prepare_options.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite or ordering advice, and no mention of alternatives among the many prepare_* siblings. The agent must infer entirely from the tool name and from domain knowledge of what a .net directive is for.

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