Clear Board Outline

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

The destructiveHint annotation already indicates the destructive nature, and the description adds specific context that all Edge.Cuts graphics are removed. It does not mention irreversibility or side effects, but the annotation covers the key behavioral risk.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and object. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple, parameterless, destructive operation, the description fully specifies what is deleted and where. The presence of an output schema and the destructiveHint annotation further cover the remaining context, making the description complete.

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 tool has no parameters, and the schema covers this completely (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter details because none are needed, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and identifies the exact resource ('all Edge.Cuts graphics') and scope ('current PCB board'). This clearly distinguishes it from related tools like delete_graphic (individual graphics) and replace_board_outline (replacing rather than deleting).

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 clearly implies the tool is for clearing the entire board outline, which provides sufficient context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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