eda_dmt_panel_create_panel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the return type (UUID or undefined) and that undefined indicates failure. It does not state any side effects (e.g., whether a new panel is automatically opened), permissions needed, or whether it affects the current document context. This is minimal for a mutation tool.

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 very short and to the point, consisting of the function signature, a one-line Chinese description, and a return note. It is front-loaded with the action. It is concise and efficient, though it lacks any structured sections.

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?

The description is incomplete for an agent to call the tool correctly. It does not explain what arguments go into the 'args' array, nor does it mention any preconditions (e.g., an active project or workspace) or potential errors beyond a generic failure. Given the tool's role in a large EDA API, an agent needs more guidance to construct a valid call.

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 baseline is 3. The schema describes both parameters: 'args' as a JSON array in official signature order and 'windowId' as an optional target window. The description adds nothing about parameters, so it does not improve on the schema. However, the 'args' parameter is vague (no list of expected fields), but that is a schema limitation, not something the description addresses.

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 states '创建面板' (create panel) along with the function signature, making the purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from other create-type tools like board creation, though the tool name itself is explicit. It adds a bit of detail on return value and failure condition, which helps.

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. It does not mention any prerequisites, such as needing an active workspace, nor does it reference sibling tools like eda_dmt_panel_copy_panel or eda_dmt_panel_modify_panel_name. An agent is left to infer when to call this.

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