eda_pcb_drc_remove_net_from_net_class

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It is transparent that this is a mutating operation and that it returns a boolean success indicator, but it does not disclose edge-case behavior (net already absent, nonexistent net class), reversibility, or whether DRC state is affected.

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 definition is short and free of filler, with the purpose and return behavior clearly stated. It loses a point because the API signature already declares Promise<boolean> and the final returns line repeats that information, and the human-readable purpose appears after the 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 simple two-parameter mutation, the signature plus the Chinese one-liner covers invocation basics: parameter names/types and the boolean result. It is incomplete around edge cases and any dependency on an existing net class, which an agent would have to infer.

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, so the signature line adds real value by naming the parameters and their types: netClassName as string and net as string or array of strings. It does not explain identifier formats or constraints, but the parameter names are self-descriptive.

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 a clear action ('remove net from net class') with a specific resource, so an agent knows what the tool does. It does not explicitly call out the sibling distinction (e.g., from eda_pcb_drc_add_net_to_net_class or remove_net_from_equal_length_net_group), so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to alternative tools for similar DRC net-group operations. The only usage signal is the implicit one carried by the operation name/description.

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