Places component orders from schematic manufacture data. Checks for warnings and returns whether the order passes validation.
sch_ManufactureData.placeComponentsOrder(interactive?: boolean, ignoreWarning?: boolean) -> Promise 元件下单 returns: 是否通过下单检查
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | No | 按官方签名顺序排列的JSON参数数组 | |
| windowId | No | 目标EDA窗口ID；省略时使用当前活动窗口 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only states the return type and a vague translation, failing to mention that placing an order likely has side effects (e.g., actual purchasing), how interactive and ignoreWarning affect behavior, or what 'passes the order check' implies. The agent cannot assess side effects or safety.
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 but not effectively concise; it wastes characters on a code-like signature and a Chinese phrase without explaining it. Important information is missing, so it is under-specified rather than concise.
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?
This is a complex operation (placing an order) with no output schema and no parameter explanations. The description omits side effects, prerequisites, possible warnings, and the meaning of the boolean return. It is far from complete for an agent to use correctly.
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 schema is generic (args array, windowId) and does not document interactive or ignoreWarning. The description lists the parameter names in the signature but provides no meaning, defaults, or examples. It adds minimal value beyond the names.
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 verb 'place components order' and the resource context (sch_ManufactureData). It is not a tautology but is terse. The Chinese phrase '元件下单' adds a label but not depth. It does not distinguish from the sibling eda_sch_manufacture_data_place_smt_components_order or eda_pcb_manufacture_data_place_components_order.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only gives a signature and a return note, with no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. 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.