eda_sch_primitive_text_modify

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the call returns Promise<ISCH_PrimitiveText | undefined> and modifies text properties, but it does not explain when undefined is returned, whether the change is persisted, what side effects occur on the schematic document, or any error/permission considerations. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 signature is compact and front-loaded, but the natural-language lines are redundant: '修改文本' merely restates what the signature already says, and 'returns: 文本图元对象' duplicates the return type shown in the signature. It is not verbose, but not every line earns its place.

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 complex mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It provides the API signature and return type but omits parameter-level semantics, usage guidance, failure behavior, and window/targeting context. An agent would need to make significant assumptions about units, enum values, and partial-update behavior before calling it 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 input schema is generic (an args array and windowId only), so the description's TypeScript signature is the primary source of parameter meaning. It adds all property names, optionality, and types, which goes well beyond the schema. However, it still lacks semantic details like coordinate units, textColor format, alignMode enum values, or the meaning of null values, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 a specific action ('modify') on a specific resource (sch_PrimitiveText) and lists the editable properties with types, so an agent can tell it is the text-modification tool. It does not explicitly differentiate it from related siblings like eda_sch_primitive_object_modify or the generic create/get/delete text tools, but the resource and method are 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as eda_sch_primitive_text_create, eda_sch_primitive_object_modify, or the generic modify tools. It implies 'modify an existing text primitive' from the signature, but there is no explicit context, prerequisite, or exclusion information.

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