eda_sch_primitive_bus_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. It only says 'modify bus' and notes the return type, but does not disclose side effects, whether the modification is destructive, error conditions, or the possibility of returning undefined (implied by the signature). This is insufficient 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 short but packs a full signature, which is somewhat dense. The Chinese phrases '修改总线' and 'returns: 总线图元对象' are redundant with the signature and add little value. The structure is acceptable but could be more organized with separate sections for purpose and parameters.

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 signature covers parameter structure, but there is no explanation of how to format the args array, whether the modification is in-place or returns a new object, or how errors are handled. With no output schema, the return type is described but not its semantics. The tool's behavior in a typical workflow is not explained.

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 includes the exact TypeScript signature, naming each parameter (primitiveId, property) and their types, which is far more informative than the generic 'args' array in the schema. This helps an agent construct the correct argument array, though it does not elaborate on the meaning of each property field (busName, line, etc.).

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 that it modifies a bus primitive ('修改总线') and provides a full method signature with parameter types. It is distinct from other modify tools via the 'bus' naming, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling modify tools for other primitive types.

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 other primitive modify tools (e.g., eda_sch_primitive_arc_modify). It does not mention prerequisites like a specific window or context, nor any conditions that would make this tool the correct choice.

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