eda_sch_primitive_text_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states it returns a boolean for success, but it doesn't mention side effects like whether deletion is permanent, irreversible, or requires specific permissions. The description implies a mutation but gives no warning about undo or impact on connected nets. This is a gap for a delete operation.

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 brief: a method signature and a two-character Chinese description plus return explanation. It's front-loaded with the signature, then the purpose. There is minimal fluff, though the signature is somewhat verbose for an AI agent, but it's acceptable for a technical tool.

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 delete operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks important context: e.g., what happens if the primitive doesn't exist, whether deletion is cascading, or if there are any restrictions (e.g., can't delete certain text objects). The return type is given but not the full success/failure semantics. Given the complexity of the schematic domain and the many sibling delete tools, this is under-specified.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with an 'args' array and 'windowId' parameter described, but the description's method signature shows the primitiveIds parameter and its types, adding meaning beyond the generic arg array. However, it doesn't detail the format of ISCH_PrimitiveText objects or how to reference them. The description provides the parameter name and return type, but the schema already covers the overall structure.

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 states '删除文本' (delete text), which is a specific verb and resource. The method signature shows it deletes primitive text by IDs, differentiating it from other primitive delete tools (e.g., arc, wire). However, it doesn't explicitly state that this is for schematic primitives, but the name 'eda_sch_primitive_text_delete' and sibling context make that clear enough.

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. Sibling tools like eda_sch_primitive_object_delete exist for generic primitive deletion, and text-specific tools like eda_sch_primitive_text_create and modify are present, but no routing or exclusions are provided. An agent has to infer that this is specifically for text primitives.

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