eda_pcb_primitive_pad_create

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

No annotations are present, and the description only says 'create pad' and returns a pad object. It does not disclose that this is a mutating operation on the current PCB, nor any side effects, failure modes, or required context. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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: a signature line, a one-line purpose in Chinese, and a returns note. Each element earns its place, though the signature is long and could be structured more naturally.

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?

With 17 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not state which parameters are required (the signature marks some as required but the schema lists 0 required), does not explain parameter semantics, and does not describe the returned pad object's structure. Types are given but meanings are not.

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 the full TypeScript-style function signature listing all 17 parameters with types and optional markers. This adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which only describes an args array. However, it does not explain the meaning of each parameter or default values.

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 '创建焊盘' (create pad) and includes the full method signature, making the verb and resource clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling create tools like eda_pcb_primitive_via_create, but the pad-specific name and return type sufficiently convey the intent.

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 other primitive creation tools or pad operations. There is no mention of prerequisites such as having an active PCB document or a valid layer context.

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