eda_sch_primitive_rectangle_modify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the mutation effect and the Promise<ISCH_PrimitiveRectangle | undefined> return, indicating the rectangle may not be returned. However, it does not explain when undefined occurs, whether omitted properties are preserved or reset, or the units/coordinate semantics of the geometry fields.

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 definition is compact and front-loaded with the precise API signature. The Chinese "修改矩形" and "returns" line are somewhat redundant with the signature, but there is no wasteful prose.

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 provides most parameter and return information, but with no output schema and no annotations, important context is missing: coordinate units, behavior when the primitive does not exist, enum values for lineType/fillStyle, and any preconditions. It is usable but not fully self-contained for a complex 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 describes args as a generic JSON array, so the embedded signature is the essential source of parameter meaning. It enumerates primitiveId and all eleven optional rectangle properties with types and optional markers, enabling an agent to construct the argument array correctly.

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 identifies the operation as modifying a rectangle via "sch_PrimitiveRectangle.modify" and "修改矩形". This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like rectangle create/get/delete and the generic 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 given on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description only states what the tool does, not the context in which it should be used.

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