eda_lib_panel_library_create

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It notes the return type (Promise<string | undefined>) and that a panel library UUID is returned, but does not mention side effects, error conditions, permissions, reversibility, or what happens if the library already exists. The description relies on the 'create' name to imply mutation without further detail.

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 concise, containing a function signature, a brief Chinese phrase, and a return type note. It is structured with the signature first and no unnecessary content, earning a high score for efficiency, though it could benefit from a more natural-language explanation.

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 lacks essential context: it does not explain what libraryUuid represents (parent library or new UUID), whether an active window is required, or what classification should contain. The return type is noted but not failure conditions. For a create operation with complex parameters, this description is incomplete.

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 provides no per-parameter descriptions (items are empty), so the function signature in the description adds parameter names and types (libraryUuid, panelLibraryName, classification, description). However, it does not explain the semantic meaning or expected values for each parameter, such as what classification index represents or the format of the classification array. It partially compensates for the schema gap but leaves ambiguity.

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 the verb 'create' and the resource 'panel library' via the function signature and Chinese text '创建面板库', making the purpose clear. It is distinct from sibling tools like delete, get, modify, and search, so an agent can differentiate it based on the operation 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as modify or copy. There is no mention of prerequisites, required context, or situations where this tool is inappropriate. Usage is only implied by the 'create' verb, with no explicit context or exclusions.

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