eda_pcb_primitive_polyline_create

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose side effects and behavioral details itself. It only restates that a polyline is created and notes the return may be undefined, but it does not mention document mutation, required active document, layer constraints, undo behavior, or failure conditions.

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 definition is compact and front-loads the signature before a one-line summary and return note. The Chinese '创建折线' is redundant with the tool name, but the overall size is appropriate for the available detail.

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 mutation/create tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description lacks prerequisites, coordinate/unit context, an explanation of what undefined means, and how to construct the polygon parameter. An agent would still be uncertain about correct invocation in a real PCB document.

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's args property is an opaque array with only a generic 'official signature order' note, so the description's signature line adds essential meaning: parameter names, order, optionality, and types. It still omits semantics such as polygon structure or units, but it goes well beyond the structured schema.

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 concrete action ('创建折线', create polyline) and exposes the exact API signature with resource types, so an agent can tell it is a creation operation. It does not explicitly distinguish it from nearby primitive creation tools like line_create or region_create, so it misses the top sibling-differentiation bar.

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 call this tool instead of eda_pcb_primitive_line_create, eda_pcb_primitive_region_create, or the polyline modify/delete siblings. The only usage signal is the create verb and signature, leaving an agent to infer selection.

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