pcb_highlight_net

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description only needs to add context. It adds nothing: there is no statement about whether the highlight replaces an existing one, whether it persists across operations, or how it relates to selection state. readOnlyHint=false is also left unexplained for an ostensibly visual 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the action and its scope arrive immediately. Nothing is wasted, though brevity here comes at the cost of the missing guidance noted elsewhere.

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?

For a simple non-destructive PCB operation with a fully documented schema and clear annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. The gap is the unresolved overlap with pcb_select_net, which the agent must resolve to invoke the right tool.

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 the schema already documents net, document, and instance_id with routing hints (list_instances, editor_get_open_tabs). The description adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond this, 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 ("Highlight a specific net") plus a scoping qualifier ("in the PCB editor for visual inspection"), so the agent knows what it does. However, it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling pcb_select_net, leaving the agent to guess which of the two produces the intended visual effect.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, even though pcb_select_net and pcb_clear_selection sit right next to it in the tool list. The phrase "for visual inspection" implies a purpose but does not tell the agent when to prefer highlight over select.

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