remove_component

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers the single most important behavioral trait: the removal is cascading and 'also removes all associated wires and connections'. It also notes the optional ctx used for progress reporting. It stops short of stating idempotency, behavior when the reference does not exist, or error/reversibility semantics, so it is strong but not complete.

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 core action and its cascading consequence are front-loaded in the first two lines, followed by cleanly separated Args/Returns/Examples sections. The doctest example is mild redundancy but reinforces the call shape and result keys, so it roughly 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, yet the description still states 'Dictionary with success status'. For a destructive mutation with zero annotations, the description covers the cascade but omits failure modes (component not found), idempotency, and any permission/precondition context, leaving a meaningful gap for this operation type.

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 description coverage is 0% and there is one required parameter, so the description must compensate — and it does, explaining that 'reference' is the component reference designator with a concrete example ('R1') and that 'ctx' is an optional MCP context for progress reporting. Both parameters are given meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Remove a component from the schematic') and immediately specifies the targeting key (reference designator). It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the surrounding sibling family (update_component, list_components, manage_components), nor does it name an alternative.

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 by 'Removes the component with the specified reference designator', which tells the agent what input selects the target. However, there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g., schematic must be loaded), and no routing to alternatives such as update_component or manage_components.

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