eda_pcb_drc_create_differential_pair

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the signature and 'returns: 操作是否成功', clarifying the return type but not side effects, failure behavior, whether existing pairs are overwritten, or what happens if the nets do not exist. For a mutating operation this is minimal disclosure.

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 efficient: a signature line followed by a one-line Chinese explanation and a return-value note. There is no filler, and the key information is front-loaded. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It gives inputs and the success boolean but omits prerequisites, error semantics, DRC context, and what state changes occur. An agent could invoke it with correct parameter names but would not know how to handle failure or preconditions.

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 input schema only provides a generic 'args' array description, so the signature in the description adds real value by naming the three parameters and their types in order: differentialPairName, positiveNet, negativeNet. It does not explain semantic constraints such as uniqueness of the pair name or that the nets must already exist, but it is sufficient to construct a basic call.

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 '创建差分对' and includes the full method signature pcb_Drc.createDifferentialPair(differentialPairName, positiveNet, negativeNet), which clearly identifies the action as creating a differential pair. The resource and verb are specific, and the tool name distinguishes it from sibling DRC creation tools. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus related tools like create_net_class, create_equal_length_net_group, or create_pad_pair_group. There is no mention of prerequisites such as an open PCB document or existing nets, nor any exclusion conditions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and signature.

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