eda_sch_primitive_circle_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It reveals the function signature and return type but does not disclose that it modifies the current schematic, may return undefined on failure, or requires an open document. It omits side effects and failure conditions, making it insufficiently transparent for an agent.

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 concise, containing the function signature, a one-line purpose, and a return statement. It is not overly verbose and is well-structured, though the signature is placed first rather than a plain-language purpose, which slightly reduces front-loading.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain the return value in detail; it only says 'returns: circle primitive object' which is vague and doesn't address the 'undefined' case. It also fails to mention that coordinates likely use the document's current units, the need for an active schematic, or any error conditions. The description is inadequate for a tool that creates a primitive in a live document.

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 lists all function parameters with names, types, and optional markers, which goes beyond the generic 'args' array in the schema. It clarifies the order and structure of the required arguments, though it does not explain the meaning of each parameter (e.g., units for coordinates, color format).

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 purpose: it creates a circle primitive via the sch_PrimitiveCircle.create function, and the Chinese text '创建圆' confirms this. It distinguishes from siblings by being specific to circle creation, unlike arc, rectangle, or generic object creation 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?

The name and signature imply it's for creating a circle, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. modify/delete/get tools or the generic eda_sch_primitive_object_create. No mention of prerequisites like an active schematic document or when not to use it.

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