eda_pcb_primitive_object_create

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool creates a primitive and returns a Promise, but does not mention side effects, failure modes, required permissions, or any consequences of misuse. It does not contradict annotations (none exist), but the disclosure is minimal.

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, consisting of a signature, a Chinese phrase, and a return note. However, the structure is haphazard: the signature is long and not formatted as prose, and the Chinese phrase is not translated. It is not well-organized for an agent to parse quickly, though it is not verbose.

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?

The tool is complex with 9 parameters and no output schema. The description fails to explain critical details such as what binaryData represents, coordinate units, layer enum values, or the meaning of mirror and primitiveLock. It also does not mention that windowId is optional. The description is far from complete for an agent to call this correctly.

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 input schema only describes the wrapper parameters 'args' and 'windowId', with args described as an ordered array. The description provides the function signature with parameter names and types, but offers no explanation of their meaning—such as the format of binaryData, units for width/height, or the allowed values for layer. This is insufficient given the 100% schema coverage that only covers the wrapper, not the actual arguments.

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 states the action: creating a binary embedded object on a PCB layer, with a specific function signature. It is a distinct operation from other primitive creations, but does not differentiate from similar tools like eda_pcb_primitive_image_create. The phrase '创建二进制内嵌对象' (create binary embedded object) is specific enough.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, target layers, or scenarios where a binary embedded object is preferred over images or other primitives. No context or exclusion conditions are provided.

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