eda_dmt_board_create_board

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

Since annotations are entirely absent, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return value (board name) and the failure condition (undefined), which is useful. However, it does not describe side effects, whether an active document is required, how the optional UUIDs are used, or any potential preconditions. This is partial transparency, not complete.

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 description is compact, including the signature, Chinese phrase, and return explanation. It is front-loaded with the signature and clear about the output. Mixing English and Chinese is minor. It is efficient but not perfectly structured for an AI parser since it's prose-like.

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 create operation, the description offers the return type and failure indication but lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., active project/document), behavior when optional parameters are omitted, and any naming or collision considerations. The windowId parameter is only explained in the schema, not in the description. Overall, an agent could call it but may not understand the full context.

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?

The input schema only provides a generic 'args' array, so the description's signature (schematicUuid?: string, pcbUuid?: string) adds critical meaning about parameters and order. It compensates for the schema's lack of per-argument detail. However, it does not explain what these UUIDs represent or the effect of omitting them, leaving some semantic gap.

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 clearly states the tool creates a board ('创建板子') and provides the exact method signature with parameter names and types. It is unambiguous and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like copy_board, delete_board, and modify_board_name by the action 'create'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to create a new board vs. copy an existing one). No prerequisites are mentioned (e.g., needing an active project), and no exclusions are given. An agent is left to infer when creation is appropriate.

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