eda_sch_primitive_object_create

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose that the tool creates a binary embedded object and returns Promise<ISCH_PrimitiveObject | undefined>, including the possibility of undefined. However, it does not mention side effects, required editor state, coordinate units, or what failure/undefined actually means.

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 compact and front-loaded with the signature, followed by a brief Chinese summary. There is minor redundancy because the signature already declares the return type and the 'returns' line repeats it.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a fairly complete API contract: full signature, return type, and target-window parameter via schema. It still lacks important invocation context such as coordinate units, acceptable file/string payload details, and whether an active schematic document is required.

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's signature enumerates all parameters — content, startX, startY, width, height, rotation, mirror, fileName — with types and optionality, which is much more informative than the opaque args array in the schema. It does not fully explain units or content format for File | string, but the parameter names are largely self-explanatory.

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 action ('创建二进制内嵌对象', create a binary embedded object) and the resource, backed by the explicit sch_PrimitiveObject.create signature. Sibling tools like eda_sch_primitive_object_modify/get_all/delete make the create intent unambiguous.

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 about when to use this tool versus the many other schematic primitive creation tools. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-selection hints provided.

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