eda_pcb_primitive_line_delete

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a deletion operation and that the return value is a boolean indicating success, but it does not discuss permanence, scope, undo behavior, or failure semantics. This is minimal disclosure for a destructive action.

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 short and leads with the signature, followed by a concise Chinese summary and return-value note. There is minor bilingual redundancy, but no unnecessary prose or filler.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits how to obtain valid primitive IDs, what window/document scope applies, whether the operation is reversible, and what errors can occur. The signature alone is not enough for safe and correct invocation.

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 a generic 'args' array, offering no parameter-level detail. The description compensates by naming the parameter 'primitiveIds' and documenting its accepted types: string, IPCB_PrimitiveLine, or arrays of these. It does not explain how to source or construct these IDs, but it adds substantial meaning beyond the schema.

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 directly states the operation via the method signature 'pcb_PrimitiveLine.delete' and the Chinese phrase '删除直线' ('delete line'), making the verb and resource unambiguous. It naturally distinguishes from sibling line operations like create, get, get_all, and modify by its delete verb.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as eda_pcb_primitive_object_delete or line modification tools. The description does not mention prerequisites, how to obtain primitive IDs, or what happens if no line is found.

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