eda_pcb_primitive_component_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. It discloses the return type and parameter list but does not state that this is a mutation with potential side effects on the PCB document, nor does it cover error conditions or required fields. It is essentially a type signature, not a behavioral specification.

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 concise block combining the API signature and a brief Chinese summary. It's compact and front-loaded with essential information. The signature is lengthy but necessary; no words are wasted.

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 modifies a PCB component and has no output schema, the description provides the return type but lacks context about usage scenarios, required parameters, error handling, or side effects. An agent might not know that primitiveId is mandatory or that the operation modifies the live PCB document. It is insufficient for a complete understanding.

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 parameter list with types, including the property object's many fields)Skip. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, which only describes args as a JSON array. It clarifies each modifiable property and its type, though it doesn't explicitly mark which parameters are required.

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 states the action 'modify' and the resource 'PCB primitive component' (修改器件), and includes the full API signature which reinforces the purpose. It is distinguishable from siblings like create/delete/get by the verb, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites such as requiring a valid primitiveId or an active PCB document, nor does it indicate when to prefer this over other primitive modification tools.

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