eda_pcb_drc_overwrite_net_by_net_rules

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

Annotations are none, so the description must carry the full burden. It warns of data loss, which is important and helpful. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like whether the operation is reversible, whether it requires confirmation, or what the return value '覆写是否成功' (success boolean) means beyond the literal. The data loss warning adds value, but more detail on side effects would be better.

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 brief but includes essential info: function signature, Chinese description, remarks, and returns. However, it is somewhat redundant: the signature already includes the parameter name, and the returns line repeats what the description says. The data loss warning is embedded in remarks, which might be overlooked. Structure could be improved by front-loading the warning.

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 complexity of overwriting rules with a Record<string, any>, the description lacks critical information: the expected format of netByNetRules, what fields are required, how to structure the keys and values, and whether there are constraints. There is no output schema, so return value details are missing. It also doesn't mention the need for an active PCB window or how windowId interacts. Incomplete for safe invocation.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema documents the 'args' array and 'windowId' parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond stating the parameter name 'netByNetRules' in the signature, but does not explain the structure of the Record<string, any> or provide examples. Since coverage is high, baseline is 3, and no extra info is added.

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 it overwrites net-by-net rules for the current PCB, which is a clear action on a specific resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like eda_pcb_drc_overwrite_net_rules or eda_pcb_drc_get_net_by_net_rules, though the 'netByNetRules' parameter suggests a distinct scope.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as eda_pcb_drc_overwrite_net_rules (which may handle generic net rules) or eda_pcb_drc_get_net_by_net_rules (for reading). The description does not mention prerequisites like having a PCB open or which rule configurations are affected.

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