Create net port

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotentHint=false; the description confirms creation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing ports with the same net name), authorization needs, or impact on the netlist beyond the basic statement.

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 consists of two concise, front-loaded sentences. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second explains behavior and netlist implications. 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?

Given the complexity (7 parameters, 5 required, enums, output schema exists), the description covers the core concept but does not integrate parameter details. It is adequate but could more explicitly state that coordinates (x,y), netName, and portType are required, and that confirmWrite must be true.

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%, so each parameter has a description. The tool description adds no additional context to parameters; it only mentions the net name concept. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: placing a hierarchical net port (off-sheet connector) on a schematic. It explains that net ports create named connections across multiple sheets and become SCH_Net entries in the netlist. This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like net flags or wire addition.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., easyeda_schematic_create_net_flag). It does not mention prerequisites, context, or situations where this tool is preferred.

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