pcb_manage_net_classes

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description labels the mutating actions (create/delete/rename/add_net/remove_net) versus the read action (get_all), but does not disclose irreversibility of delete/remove, permission needs, or that a single call mixes safe reads with destructive writes.

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 purpose and action header are front-loaded, and each action is a single compact bullet with its required parameters. There is no filler and the structure maps directly onto the enum, making it easy to scan.

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 9-parameter, multi-action tool with no output schema, the description covers every action and the parameters each requires. It does not describe the shape of results for get_all nor warn about destructive actions, but the document and instance_id scoping are fully documented in the schema.

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%, and the schema already maps each parameter to its action ('for create', 'for rename', etc.), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's per-action parameter lists largely restate that mapping rather than adding new semantics, so the baseline 3 holds.

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?

Uses a specific verb (manage) and resource (net classes), then enumerates the six concrete actions (get_all, create, delete, rename, add_net, remove_net), so an agent knows exactly what operations are available. It is clearly distinct from siblings like pcb_manage_net_rules, but it never names an alternative to differentiate itself 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?

The action list implies when each sub-operation applies, and per-action parameter hints guide invocation. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not, and no reference to sibling tools such as pcb_manage_net_rules or pcb_get_design_rules, leaving usage to inference.

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