eda_pcb_primitive_line_modify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the return type (Promise<IPCB_PrimitiveLine | undefined>) and the list of modifiable properties via the property object, but does not state side effects (e.g., whether it updates the PCB, requires the primitive to exist, or may fail) nor any constraints like coordinate units or lock behavior. It lacks detail on failure modes and prerequisites for a mutation operation.

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 concise: a one-line signature, a short Chinese phrase, and a return note. The signature is front-loaded with all parameter information. Every line adds value, though the Chinese phrase partly duplicates the signature. Structure is efficient and scannable.

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 tool in a large family of primitive modify operations, the description omits critical context: it doesn't state that primitiveId must reference an existing line, the unit system for coordinates (mm/mil), or error handling. The return type is mentioned, but there's no output schema to fill gaps. Given the complexity and similar siblings, it is incomplete.

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 provides a full function signature with parameter names, types, and optional fields (primitiveId, property with net, layer, coordinates, lineWidth, primitiveLock). This goes well beyond the generic schema, which only defines an args array and windowId. It compensates for the schema's lack of domain-specific detail, making parameter meaning clear.

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 it modifies a PCB line primitive via the signature `pcb_PrimitiveLine.modify` and the Chinese '修改直线' (modify line). It clearly identifies the resource (line primitive) and the operation (modify), distinguishing it from sibling modify tools for other primitive types like polyline or pad. However, it does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, relying on the name and type to differentiate.

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 other modify tools (e.g., eda_pcb_primitive_polyline_modify). The description does not mention any prerequisites, such as needing the primitive ID from a get operation, nor does it explain when this specific line modifier is appropriate over generic object modify. Usage context is implied by the resource type but not stated.

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