eda_pcb_primitive_arc_modify

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses only the return type (Promise<IPCB_PrimitiveArc | undefined>) and the modifiable fields. It does not explain what happens if the primitiveId is invalid, whether changes are immediately reflected, whether the active document must be a PCB, or any side effects/reversibility concerns for this mutation operation.

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-loads the full signature, which is informative. However, the Chinese phrase '修改圆弧线' simply repeats the action already evident in the name and signature, and 'returns: 圆弧线图元对象' duplicates the Promise return type already in the signature. Some redundancy and a code-dump structure rather than a curated human/agent-facing 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?

For a complex modification tool with a property object of nine optional fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to map the signature onto the args array, what coordinates/units to use, how interactiveMode works, or what undefined means as a return. An agent would struggle to invoke this correctly without external API documentation.

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 input schema only describes 'args' as an opaque JSON array and 'windowId', so the description's embedded TypeScript signature adds real meaning by naming the two actual parameters (primitiveId and property) and enumerating all property keys with their types (net, layer, startX, startY, endX, endY, arcAngle, lineWidth, interactiveMode, primitiveLock). This is significant value beyond the schema, though it still omits semantic details like units and enum value meanings.

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 identifies the action and resource: 'pcb_PrimitiveArc.modify' means modifying a PCB arc primitive, and the Chinese '修改圆弧线' reinforces this. It is unambiguous relative to sibling arc tools (create/delete/get) and other primitive modify tools because the resource is explicitly 'arc'. Missing an explicit contrasting statement, but the purpose is not vague or misleading.

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. The description is a bare function signature plus a translation of the name; there is no mention of preconditions (e.g., primitive must already exist), no contrast with arc_create/arc_delete, and no indication of when one would choose modify over get or create. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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