Create net port

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the write nature is known. The description adds genuinely useful context that the port becomes a real SCH_Net entry in the netlist, but it omits prerequisites, undo semantics, and does not mention the confirmWrite gate (left to the schema).

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 tight sentences with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the netlist-effect detail.

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?

With an output schema present and 100% schema coverage, the description need not explain returns or params. It covers the action and its netlist consequence adequately; only the routing versus sibling tools (e.g. net_flag) is unaddressed.

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%, so all 7 parameters (including enum portType and the literal-true confirmWrite) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter syntax or constraints beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Place a hierarchical net port') and clarifies what the object is ('off-sheet connector'). It implies scope differentiation by noting the port spans multiple sheets, which conceptually separates it from the sibling create_net_flag, but it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage context is only implied via 'span multiple schematic sheets' – an agent can infer this is for multi-sheet designs, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-this-over-alternatives guidance.

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