eda_sch_primitive_component_create_net_port

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation returns a Promise resolving to ISCH_PrimitiveComponent or undefined, implying possible failure (undefined). However, it does not state side effects (e.g., mutation of the component), error conditions, or behavioral nuances such as coordinate system or units. The return type hint is useful but insufficient for a create operation.

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 concise, consisting of a single-line method signature and two short lines of Chinese text and return type. It is front-loaded with the signature, but the information is not structured for readability (e.g., no bullet points or paragraph). It is appropriately short, but the lack of organization slightly reduces its usability.

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 description is incomplete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. It does not explain what a net port is, the coordinate system or units for x/y, whether the component must already exist or be selected, or the meaning of the return value. With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves significant gaps that could lead to incorrect calls.

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 defines 'args' as an array of generic items with no property details, so the description's signature is the only source of parameter names, types, and optionality (direction: enum, net: string, x/y: number, rotation?/mirror?: optional). This adds meaning beyond the schema. However, it provides no semantic explanation of each parameter (e.g., what 'net' refers to, what x/y represent in the schematic), so the added value is limited to types and structure.

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 the method name 'sch_PrimitiveComponent.createNetPort' and the Chinese text '创建网络端口' (create net port), clearly indicating the action of creating a net port on a schematic primitive component. It is distinguishable from sibling create tools (e.g., create_net_flag, create_short_circuit_flag) by the specific 'net_port' in the name, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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. The description is purely the method signature and a one-line purpose; it does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., whether a component must be selected), or scenarios where this tool is preferred over other primitive creation tools.

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