sch_create_net_port

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the single-vs-batch creation mode; it omits permission needs, failure/rollback behavior, and the batch size/latency constraints (max 10, ~1.5s each) that live only in the schema.

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, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the mode-selection rule immediately after. Every clause earns its place.

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 10-parameter, nested-object mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the what and the two input modes but says nothing about what is returned (created port identifiers/coordinates) or about side effects such as auto-switching to the target document. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 every parameter including the nested batch item schema is already documented. The description's statement that individual params are used for single creation while batch overrides them largely restates what the schema's batch description already says, so it adds little beyond the structured fields.

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 ('Create ... net ports in the schematic') plus the direction variants IN/OUT/BI. It is clearly distinct from sibling creators like sch_create_wire or sch_create_net_flag, but it never names or contrasts those siblings 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?

It gives one useful routing rule: individual parameters for a single port, the 'batch' array for multiple ports in one call. It says nothing about when this tool is preferable to sch_create_net_flag/sch_create_wire, nor any prerequisites beyond the document UUID.

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