eda_pcb_primitive_component_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return type (Promise<... | undefined>) but does not state that creation is a mutating operation, whether it requires an active PCB document, the coordinate system used, or any side effects on existing primitives.

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 a compact signature plus a short Chinese translation and return note. Every element carries information, with no filler or repetitive 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?

Given the complexity of the component parameter (multiple union types) and the lack of an output schema, the description does not explain required object properties, coordinate units, or behavioral prerequisites. An agent would need additional context to invoke this tool correctly without errors.

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 full TypeScript signature documents all parameters, including optional flags (rotation, primitiveLock) and union types for the component argument, compensating for the generic args-array schema. However, it does not explain the meaning of types like ILIB_DeviceItem or TPCB_LayersOfComponent, so agents must rely on external knowledge.

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 indicates a create operation for a PCB primitive component, with the verb 'create' and resource 'PrimitiveComponent' (器件). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like eda_pcb_primitive_component_modify and eda_pcb_primitive_component_delete, though it doesn't elaborate on what the component represents.

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 such as eda_pcb_primitive_component_place_component_with_mouse or eda_pcb_primitive_component_place_footprint_with_mouse. It does not state preconditions, document requirements, or which scenarios favor direct creation.

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