eda_pcb_primitive_polyline_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states the return type (boolean for success) and the operation, but omits side effects, irreversibility, or error conditions. For a delete operation, this is insufficient.

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 very brief, consisting of a single line with the signature and a Chinese phrase. It is concise but lacks structure or additional context. The information is front-loaded but minimal.

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 incomplete for an agent to call it correctly. It does not mention the windowId parameter (though in schema), how to obtain primitiveIds, what happens if the polyline does not exist, or any error handling. No output schema exists to clarify returns. The description leaves critical gaps.

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 includes the function signature, which specifies the parameter 'primitiveIds' and its accepted types. However, the schema provides no details for the args array items, and the description does not explain how to construct the array or what the primitiveIds represent beyond the type. This partial info is helpful but not complete.

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 (delete) and the resource (polyline) via '删除折线' (delete polyline). The name and signature reinforce this. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling delete tools for other primitive types, though the name makes it clear.

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, context, or exclusions. The description only states the action without any usage context.

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