eda_sch_primitive_object_modify

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

The description discloses the return type and that `undefined` indicates modification failure, which is useful. However, with no annotations present, it carries the full burden and does not mention side effects, whether the modification is reversible, or any required permissions/context (e.g., active document). It adds some behavioral context but is incomplete.

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, presenting the signature and return semantics in a few lines. It is not bloated with unnecessary prose. The structure is a bit ad hoc (signature followed by Chinese notes) but still easily parseable.

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 description provides the core operation and parameters but omits contextual details such as the requirement of a schematic document, how to obtain a valid `primitiveId`, and the `windowId` parameter (present in schema but absent from description). There is no output schema, so the return behavior description is helpful but not fully complete.

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 full parameter list with types and optional flags, which goes well beyond the generic input schema (which only has an `args` array). It clarifies the shape of the `property` object. However, it does not explain the meaning of each field (e.g., startX, rotation), so some semantic ambiguity remains.

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 the operation ('modify') and the resource ('二进制内嵌对象' / binary embedded object), so an agent can tell this is a modification tool for schematic primitive objects. It does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling modify tools (e.g., eda_sch_primitive_wire_modify), but the name and signature make the target clear.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing a schematic document open or an existing primitive ID, nor any exclusion criteria compared to other primitive modify tools. The description is purely a function signature.

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