eda_sch_primitive_arc_create

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 discloses that the tool returns an arc primitive object and takes a Promise, but it does not disclose side effects such as whether the created arc is immediately visible, whether the document needs to be active, what happens on invalid geometry, or whether the operation modifies the current schematic page. The 'returns' line is an output note, not a transparency 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 very short, but its compactness is not effective structure. It front-loads a long raw TypeScript signature that is mechanically redundant, then a two-character Chinese phrase '创建圆弧' and a return line. It earns a middling score because it is concise, but the structure does not prioritize useful prose 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 the complexity of a 9-parameter arc creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the geometric meaning of the three points, the units, the semantics of optional styling parameters, or defaults. The all-caps '创建圆弧' is not enough information for an agent to safely invoke this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is reported as 100%, but the schema's only description is '按官方签名顺序排列的JSON参数数组' (JSON parameter array in official signature order), which explains the transport wrapper, not the semantic meaning of startX/startY/referenceX/referenceY/endX/endY, color, fillColor, lineWidth, lineType. The description's signature lists the parameter names but does not explain coordinate meaning (e.g., does referenceX/referenceY define the control point or the center?) or the enum values of ESCH_PrimitiveLineType. Thus it fails to compensate for the semantic gap.

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 name is descriptive ('eda_sch_primitive_arc_create') and the Chinese description states it creates an arc primitive. However, it lacks a clear English statement of what it does ('创建圆弧' is minimal), and does not meaningfully distinguish it from the many sibling create tools or the closely related eda_pcb_primitive_arc_create. It restates the name with little added information.

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 vs alternatives. The sibling list contains eda_sch_primitive_circle_create, eda_sch_primitive_line_create, eda_sch_primitive_wire_create, and the PCB equivalent eda_pcb_primitive_arc_create, but the description gives no context about which document type or context this applies to beyond the implied 'sch' prefix. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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