eda_pcb_primitive_pour_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose what is destroyed (the copper pour border) and the return semantics (Promise<boolean> indicating deletion success), which is meaningful. However, it does not disclose side effects such as whether associated poured copper regions are affected, whether deletion is irreversible, or how partial failures are reported when an array of IDs is passed.

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-phrase Chinese purpose, and a returns line. Each segment carries distinct information (typing, purpose, output semantics) with no filler. It loses a point only for the disjointed mixed-language presentation and for burying the plain-language purpose between the signature and return note.

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 covers the core contract—what the tool does, its parameter type, and its boolean return—which is adequate for a simple delete operation with no output schema. It falls short on richer context: it doesn't explain what an IPCB_PrimitivePour is, how to obtain valid IDs, the effect of passing arrays versus single IDs, or the interaction between deleting a pour border and existing poured copper. Given the absence of annotations, these gaps matter.

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 items are untyped empty objects, so the description's signature provides the only real parameter semantics: the single argument is primitiveIds accepting a string, IPCB_PrimitivePour, or arrays of either. The windowId parameter is already documented in the schema with its default behavior. The description genuinely adds value where the schema is silent.

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 specific verb and resource: '删除覆铜边框' (delete copper pour border), which is concrete and maps cleanly to the tool name. The signature line additionally identifies the underlying API method (pcb_PrimitivePour.delete). It is distinguishable from nearby siblings like eda_pcb_primitive_poured_delete and eda_pcb_primitive_region_delete, though it doesn't explain the pour-vs-poured distinction explicitly.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pour_modify, poured_delete, or region_delete. There are no prerequisites, no mention of what scenario calls for deleting a pour border, and no reference to the get_all/get tools that would supply the primitiveIds. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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