eda_dmt_schematic_modify_schematic_name

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

With no annotations to carry the safety profile, the description takes on the responsibility. It discloses a critical side effect: if the schematic is linked to a reuse module, renaming will also update the module symbol and associated PCB name. It also states the boolean return. However, it omits other behavioral aspects such as reversibility, error handling for invalid UUIDs, or whether the operation is destructive in a broader sense. The disclosed side effect is valuable but the disclosure is incomplete.

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: a single-line signature, a two-character purpose statement, a remark, and a returns line. It front-loads the essential operation and return type. The only slight detractor is the mix of English and Chinese, but it remains clear and efficient.

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 covers the return value (boolean success) and an important side effect, which is essential. However, it lacks details about error conditions (e.g., what if UUID is invalid), any required preconditions (e.g., schematic must be open in an editor), and does not mention permission or ownership requirements. Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, these omissions leave gaps for an agent trying to invoke the tool reliably.

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 describes the args array and windowId generically, but the description's function signature explicitly exposes schematicUuid and schematicName in order, which clarifies how to construct the args array. This adds semantic meaning beyond the schema's vague 'JSON parameter array'. Schema coverage is high (100%), but the signature provides concrete parameter names and types, elevating the utility.

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 '修改原理图名称' (modify schematic name) and includes the exact function signature with parameter names and return type. Among the many modify_* siblings (e.g., board, folder, panel, pcb, project), this one is unambiguous in targeting the schematic name specifically, so it stands out from 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus other tools, nor any conditions or exclusions. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., schematic must be open, user permissions) or alternative approaches. The only contextual hint is the side-effect remark about reuse modules, but that is about behavior, not usage selection.

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