eda_sch_primitive_arc_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 of disclosing behavior. It provides the return type `Promise<ISCH_PrimitiveArc | undefined>` and notes the return is an arc primitive object, but it does not explain side effects (e.g., mutating the schematic document), whether the target arc must already exist, or error behavior when a primitive is not found. This is a significant gap for a 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 appropriately compact and front-loaded: the signature appears first, followed by a succinct purpose statement and return note. It is not overly verbose, though there is minor redundancy between the signature's return type and the repeated 'returns: 圆弧图元对象' line.

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?

The description captures the core API contract—signature, purpose, and return—but lacks surrounding context needed for correct invocation: no mention of prerequisites (existing arc), no clarification of arc property semantics like `referenceX`/`referenceY` or `lineType`, and no guidance on window targeting or failure modes. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, this leaves some important gaps.

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 input schema only describes the generic wrapper properties `args` and `windowId`, leaving the real function parameters undocumented. The description compensates by giving the full TypeScript signature, including the type of `primitiveId` and the complete `property` object with all modifiable fields and their types. This provides essential parameter structure, though individual field meanings are not explained in prose.

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 states the operation as '修改圆弧' (modify arc) and provides the specific method signature `sch_PrimitiveArc.modify(...)`, which identifies both the action and the resource. It is unambiguous but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like `eda_sch_primitive_object_modify` or other primitive-specific modify tools.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `eda_sch_primitive_arc_create` or `eda_sch_primitive_object_modify`. However, the 'modify arc' description and the resource-specific naming imply that it should be used when modifying an existing arc primitive, so usage is implied rather than stated.

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