eda_sch_primitive_rectangle_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type (Promise<ISCH_PrimitiveRectangle | undefined>) but doesn't explain when undefined is returned, whether the rectangle is immediately visible, whether it requires an active schematic document, or what happens on failure. The mutation aspect is clear from 'create' but side effects and error conditions are not disclosed.

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 and front-loads the signature, but it's mostly a raw API signature dump. The Chinese line '创建矩形' (create rectangle) and 'returns: 矩形图元对象' (returns: rectangle primitive object) add minimal value beyond the signature. It's not verbose, but it's not well-structured for an agent to quickly grasp usage.

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?

For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the coordinate system, units, required document context, or failure behavior. The return type is mentioned but not what the object contains or when undefined is returned. An agent would need to infer too much to call this correctly.

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, which adds meaning beyond the generic input schema (which only has 'args' as an array). However, it doesn't explain the meaning of each parameter (e.g., coordinate system, units, what cornerRadius does, color format). The schema coverage is 100% but the schema itself is generic, so the signature helps but lacks semantic depth.

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: creating a rectangle primitive in the schematic editor, with a full TypeScript signature listing all parameters and the return type. It distinguishes itself from sibling rectangle tools (delete/get/get_all/modify) by the verb 'create'. However, it doesn't explicitly state the domain (schematic) in prose, though the tool name and signature imply it.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this creates a rectangle in the schematic document, nor does it explain prerequisites like an open schematic document or active window. The windowId parameter is described in the schema but the description doesn't clarify when it's needed.

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