eda_pcb_net_unselect_net

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only states the action and return type (boolean indicating success), but does not disclose side effects, error cases, or what happens if the net is not selected. Minimal behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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 extremely concise, front-loading the signature and purpose in two short lines. No wasted words.

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-like tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., an open PCB document), effects on current selection state, and behavior when the net does not exist. More detail is needed 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?

The schema's args array is a generic JSON array with no item details, but the description provides the actual signature 'net: string', adding meaningful parameter information. The windowId parameter is also described in the schema, and the description complements the sparse schema.

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 action ('取消选中网络' = unselect network) and the resource (net), with a specific verb. It is unambiguous, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling net-selection tools like select_net or highlight_net.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when a net is currently selected, when to use unselect vs select). No preconditions or context are mentioned.

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