eda_pcb_primitive_arc_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It states it deletes arcs and returns a success boolean, but omits critical behavioral details: the operation is destructive and irreversible, it may fail if the arc no longer exists or is locked, and it doesn't specify what happens on partial success when multiple IDs are passed. This is a significant gap for a deletion tool.

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 extremely brief—a signature line, a one-line Chinese description, and a return note. It's minimal enough to be called concise, but it sacrifices substance. The structure is a code-style signature followed by a note, which is reasonably front-loaded, but it omits any natural-language explanation of behavior beyond the signature.

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 destructive nature and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is under-specified. It lacks information about irreversibility, error handling, whether the operation targets the active document, and how the boolean return should be interpreted (e.g., does false indicate no matching arcs?). An agent cannot fully anticipate the tool's behavior from this description.

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 function signature, clarifying that the first parameter (primitiveIds) can be a string or IPCB_PrimitiveArc object, or arrays of these. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only defines an 'args' array without describing its elements. The Chinese description '删除圆弧线' reinforces that the target is arc primitives. However, it doesn't explain the windowId parameter's semantics beyond what the schema already covers.

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 it deletes arc lines (删除圆弧线), giving a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling delete tools for other primitive types (line, via, pad, etc.) by naming 'arc' specifically. While it's minimal, it's not a tautology—it paraphrases the tool name with domain-specific terminology.

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 alternative delete operations. It doesn't mention that it applies to PCB arcs (as opposed to schematic arcs, which have a separate sibling eda_sch_primitive_arc_delete), nor any prerequisites or context such as needing an active PCB document. An agent would have to infer usage from the name alone.

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