eda_pcb_primitive_poured_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 clearly discloses the most important behavioral trait: poured copper fill primitives do not support modification and this call will have no effect. It also states the return value is undefined, preventing false expectations.

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 brief and information-dense, with the API signature, Chinese purpose, and critical no-op caveat each contributing. The formatting is telegraphic but free of filler.

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 fully covers the no-op behavior and return value, which is the most critical fact for an agent. However, it lacks an equivalent alternative, any rationale for the stub, or further parameter detail, leaving an agent without guidance on how to actually accomplish a modification.

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 only generically describes args and windowId, but the description's signature `pcb_PrimitivePoured.modify()` hints that no method-specific parameters are needed. The no-effect remark further reduces the importance of args. This adds modest meaning beyond the generic schema, though the official argument order is still not documented.

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 target operation ('modify' + poured copper fill primitive) and exposes the underlying API signature. The remark clarifies that the operation is effectively a no-op. It is reasonably specific, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling eda_pcb_primitive_pour_modify or explain why this separate modify tool exists.

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 remark '本接口调用将不会有任何效果' explicitly warns agents that this call has no effect, which is a useful negative usage guideline. However, it offers no alternative path (such as delete/recreate or pour_modify) and no positive scenario for when this tool should be selected.

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