eda_pcb_math_polygon_create_complex_polygon

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It does disclose that undefined indicates invalid data, which is helpful, but it does not mention whether the operation is pure, has side effects, requires a specific document state, or any other behavioral traits. The disclosure is minimal.

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 only the signature, a short Chinese phrase, and the return note. It is not verbose, though the structure is a bit linear and could be organized better. Still, it earns its place without fluff.

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: what constitutes a complex polygon, what makes input data valid or invalid, and how this relates to sibling tools. With no output schema, the return type is given but no further explanation of the returned object's structure or usage. Incomplete for a tool with this complexity.

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 descriptions for args and windowId are generic, but the description's method signature provides the specific expected types (TPCB_PolygonSourceArray, IPCB_Polygon, etc.) for the complexPolygon argument. This adds significant semantic meaning beyond the schema's 'array of any' and helps the agent construct correct input.

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 specific action '创建复杂多边形' (create complex polygon) and includes the full method signature, which clarifies the verb and resource. The name itself distinguishes from the sibling create_polygon tool, though the description does not explicitly call out that distinction.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_polygon or split_polygon. There is no context about typical scenarios, prerequisites, or conditions that would favor this tool over others.

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