eda_pcb_drc_modify_differential_pair_positive_net

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only reveals the function signature and returns a boolean. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., modifying the PCB design state), required permissions, reversibility, or error behavior. The Chinese line '修改差分对正网络' is essentially a translation of the function name and adds no behavioral depth.

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 short and includes the exact function signature, a one-line summary, and return semantics. It is efficient without unnecessary fluff, though the Chinese summary repeats the name and could be seen as slightly redundant.

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 operation in a complex PCB DRC context, the description lacks critical context: it does not specify what the input strings refer to (e.g., net names vs. identifiers), whether the differential pair must already exist, how to handle the 'windowId' parameter, or what happens on failure. With no output schema and no annotations, this is insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke the tool.

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 schema only defines 'args' as an empty array, so the function signature in the description is the only source of parameter names and types (differentialPairName: string, positiveNet: string). This adds value, but the description does not explain the meaning or valid values of these parameters beyond their self-evident names, and there is no clarification on how to pass them within the 'args' array.

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 operation: modifying the positive net of a differential pair, with explicit parameter names and types in the function signature. The sibling tool for the negative net (eda_pcb_drc_modify_differential_pair_negative_net) provides clear differentiation between the two similar operations.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus the negative-net counterpart or other DRC-related operations. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the differential pair needing to exist or a PCB document being active, and no exclusions are stated.

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