Create net flag

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

Annotations indicate write operation and non-idempotence, which the description corroborates with 'create'. The description adds behavioral context: with identification, it binds to a coincident pin; without, it is cosmetic only. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide.

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?

Two succinct sentences that immediately state the purpose and then explain the two modes. No redundant or unnecessary words; front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description does not need to cover return values. It covers the two modes and connection method. However, it does not address existing net flags or coordinate constraints, but these are minor given the tool's scope.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds meaningful context for the identification parameter by listing the enum values and their purpose. It explains the functional difference between setting and omitting identification, and clarifies that netName should match for stubs, adding value 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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and identifies the resource ('named net flag/label'). It distinguishes two usage modes (with identification for power flags, without for generic labels) and references a sibling action ('add_wire'), clearly differentiating from tools like 'easyeda_schematic_create_net_port'.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to set the identification parameter (for power/ground symbols) versus omitting it (for cosmetic net labels). It also instructs to connect pins using add_wire stubs with the same netName. However, it does not compare directly to sibling tools like create_net_port or connect_pins_by_net.

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