eda_pcb_primitive_region_modify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior fully. It only states the return type (region primitive object or undefined on failure) but does not mention side effects (e.g., it modifies the PCB design), required window context, or any destructive nature. The signature implies a mutation but lacks explicit disclosure of consequences or constraints.

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 and front-loads the signature, followed by a short Chinese phrase and return info. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized, though the technical signature may be less readable than natural language. The structure is logical and efficient.

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 tool's complexity (many properties) and the lack of an output schema or detailed annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to obtain the required primitiveId, what the windowId parameter is for, or what the returned object contains beyond a vague 'region primitive object'. It also omits any note about required context (e.g., active PCB document).

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 TypeScript signature lists all parameters (primitiveId and property with its fields) with types, providing essential structural info that the wrapper schema (which only describes args as an array) lacks. However, it does not explain the meaning or typical usage of each property (e.g., what layer, complexPolygon, ruleType do), so semantic value is partial.

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 clearly states the tool modifies a PCB region primitive via 'pcb_PrimitiveRegion.modify' and '修改区域' (modify region). The verb and resource are specific, and the signature details the modifiable properties. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create/delete/get, though the name and action make the intent clear.

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 versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., obtaining a primitiveId via get functions), and no conditions for using it. The description does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools, leaving the agent without routing information.

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