eda_sch_primitive_object_delete

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the delete action and return type (boolean indicating success), but does not mention irreversibility, side effects on related objects, or any prerequisites like an active schematic document. The minimal disclosure leaves behavioral risk unaddressed for a destructive operation.

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 very compact, containing the signature, a one-line purpose in Chinese, and a return note. It is front-loaded with the essential information and avoids redundancy. However, the mix of English and Chinese might reduce clarity for some agents, though it remains efficient.

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?

For a simple delete operation, the description covers the return value and purpose, but it omits important context such as the need for an active schematic document or how windowId affects the target. Since there is no output schema, the return type is stated, but edge cases and error conditions are not mentioned. The tool name implies schematic scope, but the description alone is not fully self-contained.

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 provides the exact function signature with parameter types (string | ISCH_PrimitiveObject | Array<string> | Array<ISCH_PrimitiveObject>) and order, which goes beyond the schema's generic 'args' array description. It clarifies that the first argument is primitiveIds and hints at the structure, though it does not explain ISCH_PrimitiveObject in detail.

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 states a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('binary embedded object'), and the function signature clarifies it operates on PrimitiveObject. The name itself distinguishes it from sibling delete tools for arcs, circles, etc., but the description does not explicitly contrast it with those alternatives, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 other delete tools (e.g., eda_sch_primitive_arc_delete) or when to use the windowId parameter. No context is given about required preconditions or selection of the target window, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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