eda_pcb_primitive_string_delete

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type (Promise<boolean>) and that the return indicates delete success, but it does not mention destructive side effects, undo behavior, atomicity when passing multiple IDs, or any effect on the document.

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: a signature line and two short phrases ('删除文本' and the return note). No unnecessary words are present, and the core action is front-loaded, though the brevity limits overall informativeness.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too thin. It does not state whether the operation requires a particular window/document, what happens on failure, how to obtain primitive IDs, or whether the deletion is reversible. The return type is mentioned, but most contextual details are absent.

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 only describes generic wrapper parameters (args array, windowId), providing no domain-specific meaning. The description contributes the actual signature with primitiveIds types (string, IPCB_PrimitiveString, or arrays), but it stops short of explaining what primitive IDs are or how to discover them.

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 action ('删除文本' = delete text) and identifies the resource as a PrimitiveString via the signature. This is specific enough to distinguish from other primitive delete tools, though it relies partly on the name to clarify the PCB context.

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 about when to use this tool versus the many sibling delete tools (arc, line, component, pad, etc.) or what prerequisites must hold, such as needing an active PCB document or how to obtain valid primitive IDs. The agent is left 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.