eda_dmt_board_modify_board_name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that it returns a boolean indicating success, but does not disclose that this is a mutating operation, any side effects, permission requirements, or whether the operation is destructive. The lack of warning about changing state is a notable gap.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a function signature, a Chinese phrase, and a return type note. It is front-loaded with the essential signature. While it is under-specified in other dimensions, this dimension rewards brevity and structure; the signature is a useful component and there is no filler.

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 simple rename tool with two parameters and a boolean return, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the meaning of the parameters, any constraints (e.g., uniqueness of names), or how to pass the arguments (the schema's args array is described only as a JSON array). An agent would have to guess the parameter order and semantics from the signature alone, which is risky.

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 description provides parameter names and types via the signature (originalBoardName: string, boardName: string), which is more than the schema offers since the schema only has an args array with no item description. However, it does not explain the semantic difference between the two parameters (e.g., original is the current name, new is the target). The description partially compensates for the schema's lack of parameter detail but not fully.

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 action (modify board name) and the resource (board) via the function signature and Chinese phrase '修改板子名称'. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like eda_dmt_folder_modify_folder_name or eda_dmt_panel_modify_panel_name, though the name itself is unambiguous. The verb and resource are specific, but no additional context is given to distinguish it beyond the tool name.

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, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the board must exist), and no exclusions. The description is purely a function signature with no contextual advice for selection.

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