eda_pcb_primitive_pad_modify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a mutating operation (modify) but does not disclose side effects, error conditions, whether the pad must exist, or the effect of partial property updates. The return type Promise<IPCB_PrimitivePad | undefined> hints at possible undefined return, but the behavior around that is unexplained.

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 a single line signature plus two short Chinese phrases and a return note. There is no wasted text, and the core operation is front-loaded. The long type definition is necessary but could be considered more specification than explanation, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 a simple modify operation: it defines the input parameters and return type. However, it lacks context such as required document state, how to obtain primitiveId, or any behavioral caveats. With no output schema and no annotations, an agent might successfully invoke it but would not know edge cases or when it is the right tool.

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 'args' as a JSON array in official signature order and 'windowId' as an optional target. The description enriches this by providing the full call signature with named parameters, types, and optional flags. This is significantly more informative than the schema alone, though individual field meanings (e.g., layer, net) are not explicitly explained.

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 operation 'modify' and the resource 'pad' via the signature pcb_PrimitivePad.modify and the Chinese phrase '修改焊盘' (modify pad). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like eda_pcb_primitive_pad_create or eda_pcb_primitive_pad_get. It is specific and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly contrast with those siblings.

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 alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it relates to other pad operations (e.g., create, delete, get). The description is purely a signature and a bare translation, leaving the agent to infer context.

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