eda_pcb_primitive_pour_rebuild_copper_regions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the return type but says nothing about side effects, whether existing copper regions are replaced or modified, whether the operation is destructive, or what prerequisites apply. 'Rebuild' implies mutation, but the consequences are not explained.

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 short Chinese purpose statement, and a one-line return explanation. It contains no filler, though the signature and Chinese text partially duplicate the same information.

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?

Given the absence of annotations, an output schema, and meaningful parameter documentation, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. It lacks usage context, side-effect disclosure, and relationship to the many sibling pour and poured primitive tools, even though the signature and return type provide a minimal starting point.

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's signature adds the actual parameter name 'primitiveIds' and its optional Array<string> type, which the generic schema's 'args' array does not convey. However, it does not explain what these IDs refer to, how they map into the args wrapper, or the effect of omitting them, so it only partially compensates for the schema's lack of parameter-level detail.

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 action, 'rebuildCopperRegions' / '重建覆铜区域', and names the resource (copper regions) and the return value (array of poured primitives). It is clear about the operation but does not differentiate it from sibling pour-related tools like pour_create, pour_modify, or poured_create.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to call this tool, what conditions require rebuilding copper regions, or how it relates to create/modify operations on pour primitives. No alternatives or exclusion criteria are mentioned, leaving the agent to 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.