eda_sch_primitive_component_create_net_flag

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the operation returns a Promise resolving to a component primitive or undefined, implying a create action, but it does not mention side effects, prerequisites (e.g., active schematic document), coordinate units, or error conditions. This is a basic level of transparency.

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 a single line function signature plus two short phrases; every piece earns its place. It is compact, immediately readable, and avoids verbose prose.

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?

The function signature provides the parameter contract and return type, but contextual details like when a net flag is applicable, what coordinate system is used, or what happens on failure are absent. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is only partially complete for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 provides a generic JSON args array, while the description spells out all parameters (identification, net, x, y, rotation, mirror) with types, enums, and optional markers. This gives the agent complete semantic understanding beyond the 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 explicitly states it creates a net flag via the function name and the Chinese phrase '创建网络标识'. It also identifies the resource as a component primitive object in the return type, distinguishing it clearly from other primitive creation tools like wire, arc, or text.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as creating a net label or other schematic primitives. The sibling list contains many create operations, but the description does not clarify the specific scenario for a net flag.

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