Creates a PCB attribute primitive, but returns undefined because attribute primitives cannot be newly created. Use for handling existing attributes only.
pcb_PrimitiveAttribute.create() -> undefined
创建属性
remarks: 属性图元不支持新建，本接口调用将不会有任何效果
returns: undefined
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | No | 按官方签名顺序排列的JSON参数数组 | |
| windowId | No | 目标EDA窗口ID；省略时使用当前活动窗口 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it explicitly discloses that the call has no effect, that attribute primitives cannot be newly created, and that the return value is undefined. This is transparent and prevents an agent from expecting a successful mutation. It could add error behavior or rationale, but for a no-op the key facts are covered.
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 short and front-loads the API signature and no-op warning. The only redundancy is that the return value `undefined` appears both in the signature line and in the final 'returns' statement, which could be tightened. Overall, every line earns its place.
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 no-op tool, it states the essential behavioral facts and return value. However, it is incomplete in that it doesn't tell an agent what to do instead (e.g., use a modify operation) and leaves the args parameter opaque. Given the simplicity, the gaps are moderate rather than severe.
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%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description adds no parameter detail. The `args` array is only described as a generic JSON parameter array with unspecified items, and `windowId` is standard. Since the operation is a no-op, exact parameters are less critical, but neither schema nor description clarifies what should be passed.
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 says "创建属性" (create attribute), but the remarks immediately negate this by stating attribute primitives do not support creation and the call will have no effect. This leaves the tool's actual purpose ambiguous — a functional create or a compatibility no-op. It is not a tautology, but the purpose is muddied by the contradiction.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like eda_pcb_primitive_attribute_modify or clarify that attributes should be modified rather than created. The no-effect remark implicitly warns against use, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use or alternative routing is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.