eda_sch_primitive_wire_modify

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does state the return type (Promise<ISCH_PrimitiveWire | undefined>) and the 'returns' line, but it does not explain side effects (e.g., the wire is changed in the document), error behavior on invalid primitiveId, or whether the modification is persisted or requires a save. The mutating nature is implied by 'modify' but not elaborated.

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, combining a precise signature and two short Chinese lines. It avoids fluff and front-loads the function name and parameters. The structure is slightly technical but efficient, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 modify operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. An agent needs to know how to obtain the primitiveId (e.g., via get_all), the coordinate system for 'line', accepted values for net/color/lineType, and whether windowId must be provided. The return statement is too vague, and no error or edge cases are covered.

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 a generic 'args' array and windowId, so the description's TypeScript signature is the primary source for parameter structure. It names primitiveId and the property object with its fields and types, which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not explain the semantics of the fields (e.g., what 'line' represents, units, valid net names, color formats), leaving significant gaps for an agent to use the tool 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 states the verb 'modify' and the resource 'wire' via the function signature and the Chinese text '修改导线'. It also lists the modifiable properties (line, net, color, lineWidth, lineType), which makes the purpose specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the generic sibling eda_sch_primitive_object_modify, relying on the name and signature to imply the wire-specific scope.

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 such as eda_sch_primitive_object_modify, or when to use create/get/delete wire tools. The description provides only the function signature and a terse 'modify wire' statement, leaving the agent to infer context. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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