eda_pcb_drc_modify_net_class_name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states that the operation modifies a name and returns a boolean; it omits target document/window behavior, behavior when the original name does not exist, duplicate-name handling, or other side effects. This is thin for a mutation tool.

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 API signature front-loaded and the return meaning included. There is minor redundancy between the signature and the Chinese action line, but overall it is efficiently structured.

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 simple two-string rename, the signature plus boolean return covers the basic invocation mechanics, and windowId is documented in the schema. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the lack of error behavior and window-target context leaves the definition minimally viable rather than fully complete.

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 exposes an opaque args array, but the description's signature provides exact parameter names, types, and order: originalNetClassName then netClassName. This is essential for constructing the argument array. The semantic distinction between 'old name' and 'new name' is implied rather than spelled out, which prevents a 5.

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 identifies the action: pcb_Drc.modifyNetClassName renames a net class, and the parameter names make the rename semantics explicit. The resource and verb are specific enough to distinguish it from sibling DRC operations like create_net_class, delete_net_class, and add_net_to_net_class.

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 signature and parameter names imply it should be used when an existing net class needs to be renamed. However, the description never states explicit criteria for choosing this tool over related net-class operations, nor does it mention prerequisites such as fetching valid net class names via get_all_net_classes.

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