eda_sch_primitive_polygon_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the return type (boolean) and that it deletes a polygon. It does not mention that deletion is irreversible, that multiple polygons can be deleted (though the signature suggests array input), or any side effects like affecting connected nets or requiring the polygon to exist. The absence of these details leaves the agent unaware of critical operational implications.

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 concise, with a single signature line and a one-line Chinese summary. It front-loads the essential information (function name, parameters, return type) without unnecessary elaboration. The bilingual content is efficient, though the English and Chinese repeat the same idea, which is slightly redundant but not bloated.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a destructive operation. It fails to mention irreversibility, error handling (e.g., what happens if an ID is invalid), or that it targets the active window unless windowId is specified. It also doesn't clarify that the function can delete multiple polygons at once, which is a significant behavior. The description is too terse to fully equip an agent for safe and correct invocation.

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 function signature, including the type union for primitiveIds (string, ISCH_PrimitivePolygon, or arrays thereof), which adds meaning beyond the generic 'args' schema description. However, it does not elaborate on the format or constraints of these values, and the windowId parameter is only explained in the schema. Overall, it partially compensates for the schema's generic 'args' field but leaves room for more explicit parameter guidance.

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 operation: 'sch_PrimitivePolygon.delete(...)' and '删除多边形' (delete polygon), with a return type. It names the specific resource (schematic polygon primitive) and distinguishes from siblings like create, modify, and get by its explicit delete verb and object type. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other delete tools (e.g., polygon_delete for PCB), though the 'sch' prefix provides implicit 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid polygon ID or that it operates on the active window unless a windowId is provided. There is no 'when not to use' or reference to related tools for querying or creating polygons, 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.