eda_pcb_primitive_object_modify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the operation mutates the object and that `undefined` indicates failure, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects, prerequisites, whether the modification is partial, or other failure-related behavior.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the official method signature, followed by a concise Chinese summary and a return-value note. There is no filler, though the signature itself is unavoidably long.

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 description is adequate for basic invocation because it provides the full signature and failure return semantics. However, it lacks contextual details such as field-level semantics, binaryData format, layer value options, and behavior when only some properties are provided, especially given the absence of annotations and an output schema.

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 a generic `args` array and `windowId`, so the inline signature adds substantial meaning: exact parameter order, primitiveId type, and all modifiable property names and types. It stops short of explaining units, enum values for layer, or binaryData encoding.

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 clear action ('modify') and a specific resource ('pcb_PrimitiveObject' / '二进制内嵌对象'), and the inline signature makes the scope concrete. It does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools such as eda_sch_primitive_object_modify or image/object create/delete tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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 given about when to use this tool instead of alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites such as first retrieving an object. The usage context is only implicit from the modify/create/get/delete naming pattern among siblings.

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