eda_pcb_primitive_dimension_modify

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that the tool modifies a dimension and may return undefined, but it does not state whether the operation mutates in place, requires the primitive to already exist, has permission requirements, or what conditions produce an undefined return.

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 information-dense: a precise signature, a one-line Chinese purpose statement, and a return-type note. There is no filler or redundant prose, and every element contributes to invoking the tool correctly.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin on context. It lacks usage context, behavior on failure, what undefined means, and any relation to the active document or current window. The signature covers parameter shapes, but not the operational context an agent needs to call it safely.

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 only describes generic wrapper arguments (args array, windowId), while the description provides the full TypeScript signature including primitiveId and the property object with fields like dimensionType, coordinateSet, layer, unit, lineWidth, precision, and primitiveLock. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, though it stops short of explaining the semantics of each property value.

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 a specific verb and resource: modify a PCB dimension primitive (pcb_PrimitiveDimension.modify / 修改尺寸标注). It clearly identifies the operation and target, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like eda_pcb_primitive_dimension_create or the generic eda_pcb_primitive_object_modify.

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, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description is purely a signature plus a one-line translation; an agent must infer from the tool name that this is the modify operation for dimension primitives.

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