eda_pcb_primitive_string_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. It only states that it modifies text and returns the primitive object, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., in-place mutation), error handling for invalid primitive IDs, or whether changes are reversible. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely short, consisting of a code signature and two Chinese fragments. While concise, it is not well-structured for agent consumption: it lacks narrative clarity and front-loaded explanatory prose. The code signature is not a substitute for a human-readable explanation, and the whole thing feels more like a technical stub than a description.

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 modifiable properties), the absence of an output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not specify which properties are required, what defaults apply, how units are interpreted, or what results from omitting fields. An agent cannot reliably construct a valid call without additional knowledge.

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 includes the full type signature with all property names (layer, x, y, text, etc.) and their types, which adds meaning beyond the generic 'args' array in the schema. However, it does not explain requiredness, units, or allowed values beyond the type names. The schema coverage for the wrapper parameters is high, but the inner object parameters are not described in schema, so the description does provide some value—yet it remains a bare type listing.

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 contains a method signature 'pcb_PrimitiveString.modify(...)' and the phrase '修改文本' (modify text), which clearly indicates the tool modifies an existing PCB text primitive. It is distinguishable from create/delete/get siblings by the modify verb and the primitive string resource. However, the description is terse and lacks a prose explanation, so it does not fully elaborate on the scope.

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 such as create or delete, no prerequisites, and no indication of required vs optional parameters. The description does not mention any context that would help an agent decide to invoke this modify operation.

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