eda_sch_primitive_pin_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only provides the return type (Promise<ISCH_PrimitivePin | undefined>) and a brief 'returns pin primitive object', but does not explain side effects (e.g., mutation of the schematic), error conditions, whether it can return undefined (and why), or any dependencies like active window/document. This is insufficient for a create 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 short and to the point: a signature followed by a one-line purpose and return note. There is no redundant text or verbose explanation, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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 lacks critical contextual details for a create operation: it does not mention that it operates on the current schematic document or requires a windowId (though the schema implies it), does not explain coordinate units or coordinate system, and only vaguely describes the return value. Given no output schema, the return should be more explicitly described. Overall, it is incomplete for an agent to call correctly without additional inference.

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 function signature with parameter names and types (x, y, pinNumber, etc.), which adds semantic meaning beyond the schema's opaque 'args' array description. However, it does not explain the meaning of each parameter (e.g., units for x/y, rotation degrees, pinShape enum values), so agents must infer details. The schema itself has 100% description coverage for the outer structure but not for the args content, so the description partially compensates.

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 it creates a pin (创建引脚) and includes the full function signature with parameter names, making the tool's action and resource unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling create tools like eda_sch_primitive_arc_create by name and the specific sch_PrimitivePin.create signature, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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 other pin operations (e.g., modify, delete) or other primitive creation tools. There is no mention of prerequisites like an open schematic document or whether this should be used only for creating new pins, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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