eda_dmt_pcb_create_pcb

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful return semantics: a PCB UUID is returned, and undefined means creation failed. However, it does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, or whether the newly created PCB becomes active or appears in a specific project.

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 minimal and front-loaded: API signature, one-line purpose, and return/failure semantics. Every line earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 creation tool, the description is mostly complete: it gives the optional parameter, the promise return type, and the failure signal. Since there is no output schema, the explicit return description is valuable. It could provide more context about creation side effects, but the essential invocation details are present.

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 schema only describes 'args' as a JSON array in official signature order, but the description supplies the actual meaningful parameter via 'boardName?: string'. This adds real semantic value beyond the generic schema. windowId semantics are already covered by the schema.

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 '创建 PCB' (creates a PCB) and provides the API signature dmt_Pcb.createPcb. It specifies a concrete verb and resource, and the name distinguishes it from sibling operations like copy/delete/get/modify, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as eda_dmt_pcb_copy_pcb or other create_* tools. Usage context is only implied by the verb 'create' and the resource name, with no exclusions or prerequisites.

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