pcb_manage_net_rules

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation risk is already flagged. The description goes beyond that with a genuinely useful operational caveat: overwritten rules do not affect pour reflow until the PCB document is closed and reopened. That is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a scannable action list and a clearly separated warning. No filler; the action/parameter mapping is tight. Minor redundancy with schema descriptions costs nothing structural.

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 six-parameter action-dispatch tool with nested objects and no output schema, the definition covers the action space, payload shapes, document/instance targeting hints, and the pour-reflow caveat. It doesn't describe what the get_* actions return, a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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 tags each payload parameter with its action (e.g., 'Net rules array (for overwrite_net)'). The description repeats that same action-to-parameter mapping rather than adding new semantics, so it earns the baseline 3.

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 clear verb+resource ('Manage net-specific design rules') and enumerates the five actions with their payload shapes. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-siblings like pcb_get_net_rules, pcb_get_design_rules, or pcb_manage_rule_config, which overlap in the read space.

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 the warning gives a prerequisite for the overwrite flows. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. the sibling rule tools (e.g., pcb_get_net_rules, pcb_manage_rule_config), so routing among overlapping tools is left to inference.

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