eda_pcb_drc_add_net_to_net_class

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the return type (Promise<boolean>) and says 'returns: 操作是否成功' (operation success), but nothing about side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or any impact on existing configurations. For a mutation operation, this is a significant gap.

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 very short and to the point, consisting of the signature and a one-line Chinese phrase. It is not verbose and avoids unnecessary fluff, though it could be structured better with more clarity.

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 and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It provides the return type but lacks any behavioral context, usage scenarios, or interaction with other tools. An agent cannot fully understand the implications of calling this tool without additional information.

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?

The description includes the function signature with parameter names and types (netClassName: string, net: string | Array<string>), which adds meaning beyond the generic input schema that only lists 'args' and 'windowId'. However, it does not explain what a net class is, what valid net names are, or any constraints on the parameters, so it only partially compensates for the lack of detailed schema.

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 states the action '将网络添加到网络类' (add net to net class) which is clear but essentially restates the tool name. It does not distinguish this from sibling tools like eda_pcb_drc_add_net_to_equal_length_net_group or eda_pcb_drc_add_pad_pair_to_pad_pair_group. It lacks any specifics about the nature of the operation beyond the basic action.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, when it is appropriate, or when to avoid it. The description provides no context for selection among the many DRC-related tools.

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