eda_pcb_primitive_via_modify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states it modifies a via and returns the via object. It does not disclose whether the via must exist, whether properties are overwritten or merged, units for x/y/diameter, or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 but mixes a code signature with a Chinese phrase and return note. It is not a well-structured natural language description, though it packs all essential information. The structure is functional but not ideal for an agent reading it as guidance.

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 there is no output schema, the description explains the return type (Promise<IPCB_PrimitiveVia | undefined>) and states it returns the via object. It also provides the parameter structure via the signature. Missing context like how to obtain a primitiveId or units is not critical since it can be inferred from sibling get tools.

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 provides the full function signature with parameter names and types, which significantly adds meaning beyond the generic args/windowId schema. It lists all fields of the property object, including types and optionality. However, it does not explain the semantics of each field (e.g., units for coordinates, meaning of viaType), so some gaps remain.

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 identifies the tool as modifying a via (修改过孔) and lists all modifiable properties (net, x, y, holeDiameter, diameter, viaType, designRuleBlindViaName, solderMaskExpansion, primitiveLock). This distinguishes it from other primitive modification tools and states the resource and action explicitly.

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 description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. However, the name and sibling tools (create/delete/get) imply it is for modifying an existing via, but there is no guidance on when not to use it or how it relates to other modify tools.

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