eda_pcb_net_highlight_net

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add one genuinely useful behavioral note: if the net was already highlighted, the call still returns true (result-oriented return semantics). However, it omits other relevant behaviors, such as what happens when the specified net does not exist, whether the highlight is a visual-only mutation, and whether an active PCB window is required.

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, front-loaded with the signature, and the behavioral note is placed in a dedicated remarks field. Every sentence earns its place, though the purpose statement is minimal.

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?

This is a relatively simple operation with 2 parameters at 100% schema coverage and no output schema. The description covers purpose and return semantics. Gaps include the invalid-net behavior, the requirement of an active PCB document, and the distinction from unhighlight/select siblings, but for a simple highlight operation these are moderate rather than critical omissions.

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 description coverage is 100% and the args are generically described as a JSON array in official signature order. The description's signature line identifies the single net parameter as a string, which adds marginal meaning. With full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate further.

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 verb ('highlight') and resource ('net') via both the signature and the Chinese '高亮网络' (highlight net). The intent is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tools eda_pcb_net_unhighlight_net or eda_pcb_net_unhighlight_all_nets, relying on the name for that distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like eda_pcb_net_unhighlight_net or eda_pcb_net_select_net. It also fails to note prerequisites, such as needing an open PCB document or that the target net must exist for highlighting to have effect. An agent must infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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