eda_lib_panel_library_modify

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the return type (Promise<boolean> for success) and the special behavior that setting values to null clears properties. However, it does not mention side effects, whether the operation is reversible, permission requirements, or error scenarios. It adds some value beyond the schema but lacks depth expected for a mutation tool without annotations.

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, consisting of a signature line and short remarks. It front-loads the essential signature, followed by a concise note about null-clearing and return value. No redundant text is present, though the signature is technical and could be seen as dense. Overall, it is efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters) and no output schema (only a boolean return), the description covers the essential details: all parameters, types, optionality, return type, and a key usage rule. It does not explain what classification indexes mean or mention error behaviors, but for a straightforward modify operation, it provides sufficient context for an agent to call it correctly. The schema covers windowId and the array structure, so the combined information is adequate.

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 description includes the full parameter list with names, types, and optionality (e.g., panelLibraryUuid: string, classification?: ILIB_ClassificationIndex | Array<string> | null). This goes well beyond the schema, which only describes an args array without item details. The description clarifies the order, meaning, and the null-clearing semantic for each optional property, providing comprehensive parameter understanding.

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 tool modifies a panel library ('修改面板库') and provides the full function signature with parameter names, making the resource and action explicit. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools but the resource type (panel library) distinguishes it from other modify tools like eda_lib_symbol_modify or eda_lib_footprint_modify. The purpose is clear and specific enough.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use create, delete, or get operations, or how to choose among different modify tools. The only usage hint is that setting a property to null clears it, which is a behavioral note rather than guidance on selecting the tool. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools are mentioned.

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