Modify a panel's name using its UUID and new name, returning whether the update succeeded.
dmt_Panel.modifyPanelName(panelUuid: string, panelName: string) -> Promise 修改面板名称 returns: 是否修改成功
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | No | 按官方签名顺序排列的JSON参数数组 | |
| windowId | No | 目标EDA窗口ID；省略时使用当前活动窗口 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the return type 'Promise<boolean>' and clarifies the boolean indicates success ('返回: 是否修改成功'), which is useful. However, with no annotations, it does not mention permissions, failure behavior for invalid UUIDs, or immediate side effects, leaving the agent to assume basic rename behavior.
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 and front-loaded with the function signature, followed by a one-line Chinese purpose and a return note. Minor redundancy exists because the return type appears in both the signature and the Chinese 'returns: 是否修改成功', but this does not impair clarity.
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 two-parameter rename tool, the description covers the inputs and boolean result, but lacks context on how to obtain the panel UUID, expected failure behavior, or whether the panel must be open/selected. With no output schema or annotations, it provides the minimum needed for a syntactically correct call but not deeper operational 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 describes 'args' as an array in official signature order and an optional 'windowId', so it does not document the actual parameters. The description fills this critical gap with the exact signature 'panelUuid: string, panelName: string', telling the agent precisely what values to pass and in what order.
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 operation through the signature 'modifyPanelName(panelUuid: string, panelName: string)' and the Chinese phrase '修改面板名称' (modify panel name), specifying both the resource (panel) and action (rename). It is distinguishable from sibling panel tools by the explicit rename intent, though it does not explicitly call out alternatives.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites, exclusions, or context such as how to obtain a valid panelUuid. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and terse description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.