Update the negative net of a specified differential pair to correct design rule check (DRC) violations or adjust PCB routing.
pcb_Drc.modifyDifferentialPairNegativeNet(differentialPairName: string, negativeNet: string) -> Promise 修改差分对负网络 returns: 操作是否成功
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | No | 按官方签名顺序排列的JSON参数数组 | |
| windowId | No | 目标EDA窗口ID；省略时使用当前活动窗口 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal that the operation returns a boolean indicating success, but it does not disclose side effects, whether the operation fails silently, whether an existing negative net is overwritten, or what happens if the differential pair does not exist.
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 compact, with the signature front-loaded and only a brief Chinese summary and return note following it. It earns its sentences, though the Chinese phrase largely restates the meaning already conveyed by the tool name and signature.
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, this description is thin. It lacks context about the target PCB document, whether the differential pair must already exist, the relationship between positive and negative nets, and possible failure modes. An agent has enough to guess the call shape but not enough to use it confidently.
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, so the signature line adds meaningful parameter names and types: differentialPairName as string and negativeNet as string. This helps an agent construct the call correctly, though the description does not explain valid net-name formats or naming constraints.
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 clearly states the verb (modify) and the resource (differential pair negative net), and the Chinese phrase '修改差分对负网络' reinforces this. The 'negativeNet' terminology distinguishes it from the sibling 'modify_differential_pair_positive_net', though it does not explicitly name that alternative.
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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus modifying the positive net, renaming a differential pair, or creating/deleting a differential pair. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool mentions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.