eda_sch_primitive_rectangle_delete

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors. It does state the return type (boolean indicating success) and the parameter types, but it does not mention side effects, undoability, or any required permissions. It does not clarify whether deletion is immediate or requires saving.

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 the signature, a Chinese phrase, and return explanation. It is not overly verbose, but the bilingual aspect adds some redundancy. Structure is acceptable but could be improved by adding usage guidance.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return (it does). However, it does not explain how to construct the args array or the role of windowId. It also lacks information about error conditions or what happens if the primitive does not exist. Incomplete for an agent to call 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 schema only provides a generic args array with no item descriptions, so the description compensates by specifying the primitiveIds parameter and its accepted types. However, it does not explain what ISCH_PrimitiveRectangle is or how to obtain IDs, nor does it mention the windowId parameter. Partial semantic coverage.

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: delete a rectangle primitive, and gives the method signature. It is specific to rectangle primitives, distinguishing it from other primitive delete tools. However, it does not mention the schematic context explicitly, but that is implied by the tool name and signature.

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 like eda_sch_primitive_object_delete. No context about prerequisites such as having an open document or selecting primitives. The only implied usage is when deleting rectangle primitives, which is not explicit.

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