eda_sch_primitive_circle_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 behavioral disclosure. It states 'modify' and a return type, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it changes existing data irreversibly), what happens if the primitive does not exist, whether partial updates are supported, or any permission/undo implications. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 technically concise, consisting primarily of a code signature and two short Chinese phrases. It is not overly verbose, but it is not structured as readable natural language; the signature is front-loaded and may be cryptic to an agent. The 'returns' line is redundant given the signature already shows the return type. It earns a middle score—concise but not well-structured for agent comprehension.

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 and no annotations. The tool has multiple optional properties and a complex type signature, but the description does not explain how to obtain a valid primitiveId, how to pass the property object within args, what the return object looks like (beyond the type name), or what occurs when the primitive is not found. Combined with the lack of usage prerequisites, this is incomplete for an agent to call it 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 has 100% description coverage for args (JSON array in official order) and windowId, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the full function signature, including property names, types, nullability, and the promise return type. However, it does not explain the meaning of each property (e.g., coordinate units, color format, line type enums) or how to structure the args array beyond the raw signature. It adds some value but does not fully compensate for the lack of detailed property semantics.

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 says '修改圆' (modify circle) and gives the function signature, making it clear the tool modifies a schematic circle primitive. It is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other modify tools (e.g., eda_sch_primitive_arc_modify), though the name and resource are unambiguous enough. Slight lack of explicit sibling distinction prevents a 5.

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 versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (like needing an existing circle primitiveId), and no statement about what distinguishes it from create/get/delete circle tools. The description simply restates the function signature without any usage context. This is below the minimum viable guidance.

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