eda_pcb_primitive_attribute_modify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the return type (Promise<IPCB_PrimitiveAttribute | undefined>) but never explains when undefined is returned, whether the target primitive must already exist, or what side effects a modify has. For a mutation tool, this is thin.

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 dominated by a dense raw TypeScript signature followed by only two short Chinese prose lines ('修改文本', 'returns: 文本图元对象'). There is no front-loaded plain-language summary and no structured explanation; the technical dump is the entire content.

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?

As a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a generic wrapper schema, the description needed to compensate but doesn't. Missing: when undefined is returned (failure condition), how to obtain a primitiveId (via sibling get tools), property units/constraints, and any prerequisites for a successful modify call. An agent would struggle to call this correctly.

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 is a generic wrapper (an args array of empty {} items plus windowId), providing essentially no real parameter detail, so the description's signature is the only source documenting the 16 modifiable properties and their types. This is genuinely valuable, but it offers no semantic explanation of units, constraints, or defaults for properties like x, y, fontSize, expansion, or rotation.

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 action ('修改文本' = modify text) and dumps the function signature listing modifiable properties, so a verb and resource are present. However, it never clarifies what a 'primitive attribute' is in the PCB context or how it differs from the many sibling primitive tools (string_modify, component_modify, pad_modify, etc.). The purpose is stated but only thinly.

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 whatsoever on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With a large sibling set including attribute_create/delete/get and numerous other primitive modify tools, there is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to an alternative. The agent must guess based on the name alone.

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