eda_sch_primitive_polygon_modify

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

The description discloses that the operation modifies a polygon and returns a polygon primitive object (or undefined), which is helpful. But with no annotations, it does not explain side effects, what happens when the primitiveId is invalid, whether changes are reversible, or any required editor/document context.

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 essential API signature is packed into a single line with no wasted prose, plus a brief Chinese summary and return type. This is efficient, though the lack of natural-language front-loading slightly reduces scannability.

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 signature gives the agent the key parameters and return type, which is essential since the schema itself is vague. However, missing usage context, behavioral caveats, and parameter semantics such as the meaning of the line array leave notable gaps for an unannotated mutation tool.

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 input schema only provides a generic 'args' array and 'windowId', so the description carries the real parameter semantics. It lists primitiveId and the full property object with line, color, fillColor, lineWidth, and lineType types, adding substantial meaning beyond the schema, though it omits details like coordinate units or enum value meanings.

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 says '修改多边形' (modify polygon) and includes the full method signature, clearly indicating it modifies a schematic polygon primitive. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling primitive-modify tools such as eda_sch_primitive_rectangle_modify or eda_sch_primitive_object_modify.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. Among many sibling primitive modify tools, the agent is left to infer from the name alone that this is the polygon-specific modifier.

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