eda_pcb_primitive_dimension_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but it only states that a dimension is created and lists a return type. It does not disclose side effects on the current document, requirements for an active editor, or why the promise may resolve to undefined.

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-loaded with the essential signature, followed by a short Chinese clarification and return note. There is no filler, but the structure is more of a code signature than a prose 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 create operation with no annotations and no output schema, this description is incomplete: it lacks examples, details on coordinateSet structure, dimensionType values, and handling of the undefined return case. An agent would need external documentation to call it reliably.

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?

Although the input schema only describes a generic args array, the description includes the full parameter signature with names, types, optional markers, and the unit enum values. It does not explain the meaning of complex types like coordinateSet, but it provides substantially more information than the schema alone.

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 identifies the exact operation with the call signature pcb_PrimitiveDimension.create and the Chinese '创建尺寸标注' (create dimension annotation), naming a specific resource and verb. This is distinct from sibling dimension operations (delete/get/modify) by virtue of the create semantics.

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 on when to use this tool versus other primitive creation tools or dimension modification tools. There is no mention of prerequisites such as an active PCB document or layer selection, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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