eda_pcb_layer_overwrite_current_physical_stacking_configuration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly warns about data loss risk ('请注意数据丢失风险'), which is critical for a destructive overwrite operation. It also discloses the failure behavior: returns false without modification if the configuration doesn't match. This goes beyond the basic 'overwrite' semantics and provides meaningful behavioral context.

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 method signature and core action. The data loss warning and failure condition are placed prominently. The 'ADD since EDA v4.2' and 'returns' lines are useful metadata. Slight redundancy between the signature and the Chinese description, but overall 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?

For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key risks (data loss) and failure mode (false return). However, it doesn't explain how to obtain a valid IPCB_PhysicalStackingConfiguration object, what 'physical properties' means in practice, or whether the operation can be undone. The return value is described ('覆写是否成功'), so that gap is covered.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the two parameters (args array and windowId), but the description adds no detail about the physicalStackingConfiguration parameter structure or how to construct it. The method signature names the parameter type (IPCB_PhysicalStackingConfiguration) but doesn't explain its fields. The description doesn't compensate for the lack of parameter detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('覆写' / overwrite) and resource ('当前物理叠层配置' / current physical stacking configuration), and includes the method signature. It clearly identifies the action and target. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like eda_pcb_layer_save_physical_stacking_configuration or eda_pcb_layer_set_as_default_physical_stacking_configuration, but the 'overwrite current' phrasing is distinct 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 implies usage context: it overwrites the current physical stacking configuration, and mentions a failure condition (returns false if the configuration doesn't match the PCB's physical properties). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like save_physical_stacking_configuration or set_as_default_physical_stacking_configuration, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing to retrieve an existing configuration first.

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