eda_pcb_select_control_do_select_primitives

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the input type and boolean return, but does not state side effects (e.g., whether it clears prior selection), failure conditions, or behavior across multiple IDs. This is a significant gap for a selection mutation tool.

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 short and front-loaded with the signature, but it is minimal and lacks explanatory context. It is not verbose, but the brevity results in under-specification rather than efficient completeness.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete for an agent to call correctly. It does not specify whether selection is additive or replaceable, how to pass multiple IDs through the args array, or what happens if an invalid ID is given. The return boolean is the only outcome disclosed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (both args and windowId have descriptions). The description adds the signature detail that primitiveIds can be a string or array, which clarifies the expected args content beyond the generic array description. However, it does not explain how to structure the args array or handle multiple IDs, so it only partially compensates.

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 operation is to select primitives using their IDs, with a clear function signature and return type. The name includes 'pcb' and 'select_control', distinguishing it from schematic and other selection tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like clear_selected or get_all_selected_primitives. It does not mention whether selection replaces or augments the current selection, nor any prerequisites such as an active document.

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