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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses exactly what can be destroyed: tracks, vias, and optionally copper zones. It also gives important protective semantics: keepouts are never deleted, locked items stay unless include_locked is set, and layers do not filter vias.

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 dense but front-loaded with the destructive action, and every clause carries operational meaning. It avoids repetition and covers the important caveats without unnecessary 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?

For a destructive bulk-delete tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description gives strong filtering and safety context. It leaves async job behavior and return handling to the schema's wait_s description and sibling tools, which is a minor gap rather than a blocking omission.

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?

With only 30% schema description coverage for 10 parameters, the description compensates well. It explains the boolean filters, default inclusion of tracks and vias, zone behavior, layer filtering exceptions for vias, filter combination, region matching, and include_locked semantics.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete tracks and vias', then enumerates the routing objects and filters affected. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as prune_vias or cleanup_board.

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?

Usage is implied through the available filters ('of the given nets, on the given layers... or all') and defaults. However, the description does not explicitly say when to choose this instead of alternatives like cleanup_board, prune_vias, or route_board.

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