eda_pcb_primitive_image_modify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool modifies an image and returns an image primitive object, but does not disclose side effects, whether changes are incremental, coordinate/layer semantics, lock behavior, or when undefined might be returned.

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-loads the full call signature, which is information-dense. The Chinese phrases '修改图像' and 'returns: 图像图元对象' are partly redundant with the signature, but the overall length is appropriate.

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 an agent to invoke the tool, the signature covers the parameter names and return type, which is minimally viable. Missing context includes how to pass values within the args array, layer enum values, units for x/y/width/height, and the meaning of undefined in the return.

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 provides a generic 'args' array, so the TypeScript signature in the description adds meaningful semantics: primitiveId, x, y, layer, width, height, rotation, horizonMirror, and primitiveLock, including optionality and types. However, it does not explain units, enum values, or exact argument array construction beyond the signature.

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 identifies modifying a PCB image primitive via 'pcb_PrimitiveImage.modify' and the Chinese '修改图像', which is a specific verb+resource. It does not explicitly state 'use this for image primitives, not other primitive types', but the signature and name make the target resource unambiguous.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as eda_pcb_primitive_image_create or eda_pcb_primitive_image_delete. There is no mention of prerequisites, when modification is appropriate, or how it differs from related primitive modify tools.

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