eda_pcb_drc_create_net_class

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the operation is a creation ('创建') and returns a boolean for success, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., what happens if the net class already exists), permissions required, whether the operation is reversible, or whether it modifies the current rule configuration. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 concise and front-loaded with the signature, which is useful. It is not bloated, but it is under-specified—it reads as a raw API signature dump with a Chinese comment and return type, rather than a crafted explanation. The structure is minimal but not disorganized, so it earns a mid score.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple parameters, mutation operation) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a net class is, how color is represented, what nets should be provided, whether existing classes are overwritten, or what the boolean return value implies in edge cases. An agent would need external documentation to invoke this tool correctly and safely.

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 exposes generic 'args' and 'windowId' fields, so the actual parameters are not individually documented in the schema. The description compensates by including the raw signature (netClassName: string, nets: Array<string>, color: ...), which conveys parameter order and types. However, it does not explain the meaning of 'nets' (e.g., net names) or the expected color format, so parameter semantics remain partially underspecified.

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 specific verb and resource: '创建网络类' (create net class) along with a function signature. This clearly identifies the operation as creating a new net class, and the sibling tools like eda_pcb_drc_add_net_to_net_class or eda_pcb_drc_delete_net_class are distinguishable by name. However, the description does not explicitly contrast it with these siblings, so it doesn't fully differentiate behavior—only the tool name does.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this creates a new net class while eda_pcb_drc_add_net_to_net_class adds nets to an existing one, nor does it state prerequisites such as an active PCB document. There is no context about when this is the appropriate choice among the many DRC tools.

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