eda_pcb_primitive_region_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the operation is a delete and returns a boolean, which conveys basic intent, but it does not disclose side effects (permanence, impact on connections), error conditions, or whether it is asynchronous beyond the Promise signature. Given it is a destructive mutation, this is a significant omission.

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 very short (two lines, one English signature and one Chinese phrase). It is efficient but arguably under-specified. The signature is useful and front-loaded, but the lack of any explanatory context makes it feel incomplete rather than appropriately concise. It is not a tautology, but it does not fully earn its place.

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 tool takes a complex parameter (primitiveIds accepting multiple types) and operates on a PCB document, yet the description provides no information on how to obtain primitive IDs, whether the region must be selected, what happens on failure, or how to handle the response. No output schema exists, and the return type is only briefly noted. An agent would likely need external documentation to use 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 adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's generic 'args' array by providing the exact signature: 'primitiveIds: string | IPCB_PrimitiveRegion | Array<string> | Array<IPCB_PrimitiveRegion>'. This tells an agent the accepted parameter types and structure, which the schema's empty items definition does not. It omits mention of the windowId parameter, but that is covered in the schema.

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 — '删除区域' (delete region) — using a clear verb and resource. The name itself mirrors the action Tickets and distinguishes it from sibling create/get/modify tools for regions. However, the description is minimal and doesn't describe what a region is in this context, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what prerequisites must be satisfied (e.g., an open PCB document, existing region primitives), or when alternatives like eda_pcb_primitive_region_modify or other primitive delete tools would be more appropriate. The description entirely lacks usage context.

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