sch_create_net_flag

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

Annotations already declare the operation is a write (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description only adds the batch capability, without noting that the batch path ignores the individual parameters (that caveat lives in the schema), so added behavioral value is modest.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no wasted words. The single-vs-batch distinction is stated compactly and clearly.

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 creation tool with full annotation coverage and a 100% documented schema, the description covers the key modes an agent needs. The only meaningful omission is distinguishing this tool from sch_create_net_port, but the schema and annotations carry the rest.

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 all 10 parameters, including the batch-vs-single semantics and the 'individual parameters are ignored' rule. The description reinforces the single/batch distinction but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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?

The description gives a specific verb (Create) and resource (net flags), and enumerates the four supported flag types (Power/Ground/AnalogGround/ProtectGround), which matches the enum. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling sch_create_net_port, leaving ambiguity between the two net-related creation tools.

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?

It clearly explains the two invocation modes — individual parameters for a single flag, or the 'batch' array for multiple — which is genuine usage guidance. But it offers no when-to-use/when-not-to-use context relative to siblings like sch_create_net_port, so routing still requires inference.

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