eda_pcb_primitive_polyline_modify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return type (Promise<IPCB_PrimitivePolyline | undefined>) which implies a returned object or undefined, but does not disclose side effects, whether the primitive must exist, error handling, or whether the modification is destructive or reversible. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 concise, containing the signature and a brief Chinese summary. It is front-loaded with the signature, which is useful, and there is no redundant text. However, it could be slightly more compact by omitting the signature, but the signature adds value, so it's well-structured.

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 does not explain how to use the wrapper parameters (args and windowId) that appear in the schema. It does not state that args must be an array containing primitiveId and property in order, nor does it mention any defaults or required fields. For a tool with no output schema and a complex property object, this is incomplete. An agent would need external knowledge to call it correctly.

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 complete function signature with parameter names and types (primitiveId, property, and its fields), which the schema does not provide (it only has wrapper args and windowId). This adds structural meaning, but it does not explain the semantics of fields like TPCB_LayersOfLine, IPCB_Polygon, or the meaning of primitiveLock. No units or allowed values are given, so the agent lacks full semantic understanding.

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 the tool modifies a polyline primitive and includes the full signature. It clearly identifies the resource (polyline) and action (modify), and the name includes 'modify' which distinguishes it from create/get/delete siblings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from other modify tools for different primitives.

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 vs alternatives like eda_pcb_primitive_line_modify or eda_pcb_primitive_arc_modify. The name implies polylines, but the description does not state any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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