eda_sch_primitive_pin_modify

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only includes the return type and a generic 'returns pin primitive object'. It does not mention side effects, whether the pin must exist, error cases, or the meaning of the undefined return value. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 extremely brief, consisting of a code signature and two short Chinese phrases. While concise, it lacks structure and explanatory text, making it more of a raw API dump than a helpful description.

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 is incomplete for an agent to use correctly. It lacks guidance on prerequisites, when to use this tool, how to interpret the return value beyond a generic object, and what fields in the property object are commonly used. Without output schema or behavioral notes, the tool is hard to invoke confidently.

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 full parameter signature with types and optional flags, which is valuable because the input schema only describes 'args' as an opaque array. However, it does not explain the semantics of individual properties like x, y, rotation, or pinNumber, so agents may not know valid units or values.

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 indicates the tool modifies a schematic pin via the function signature and the Chinese phrase '修改引脚' (modify pin). The verb and resource are specific, but it does not differentiate from other pin tools like create, delete, or get, relying on the name for distinction.

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 conditions, prerequisites, or context about when modification is appropriate are provided, 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.