eda_pcb_primitive_pour_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 of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that undefined indicates modification failure, but does not disclose side effects, whether the primitive must exist, whether copper regions are rebuilt, or any destructive implications. For a mutation tool this is a significant gap.

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 but not well-structured: it leads with a lengthy function signature, then a one-line Chinese description, then a returns note. The signature is informative but cluttered. The human-readable part is minimal. It's efficient but could be better organized with a clear action statement before the signature.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and a complex modify operation with many properties. The description does not explain the meaning of properties like pourFillMethod or preserveSilos, nor how to obtain primitiveId, nor when to use modify vs rebuild_copper_regions. For an agent to call this correctly, important context is missing.

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 input schema is generic (args array, windowId) and provides no parameter documentation. The description compensates fully by listing all parameters (net, layer, complexPolygon, pourFillMethod, preserveSilos, pourName, pourPriority, lineWidth, primitiveLock) with their types in the function signature. This adds rich meaning beyond the schema, making parameter semantics excellent.

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 verb 'modify' and the resource 'copper pour' (覆铜边框), and includes a full function signature listing all modifiable properties. It clearly distinguishes from sibling pour tools (create/get/delete) by the action verb. However, it lacks elaboration on what typical modifications are used for, so it's clear but not maximally descriptive.

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 like pour_create, pour_get, or rebuild_copper_regions. There are no prerequisites, no context about required state (e.g., existing primitive, active document), and no exclusions. The description is purely functional with zero usage context.

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