Delete Component

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is destructive. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'from the PCB', which is more about scope than behavior. It does not clarify consequences like trace/orphan handling or errors for missing components, but the annotations carry the main safety burden.

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?

A single sentence of 11 words that front-loads the action and resource. Every word earns its place; 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 one-parameter tool with annotations and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It captures the essential purpose and parameter usage, and the 'PCB' qualifier provides enough context to avoid confusion with schematic component tools. It lacks detail on error cases or side effects, but these are less critical given the schema and annotations.

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 coverage is 100%: the 'reference' parameter already has a clear description with an example. The tool description merely repeats 'by its reference designator' without adding new semantic details, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 'Remove a component from the PCB by its reference designator' clearly states the action (remove), the resource (component from PCB), and the identifying method (reference designator). It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_schematic_component' by explicitly specifying 'PCB'.

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 phrase 'from the PCB' implies this tool is for board-level components, distinguishing it from schematic-component deletes. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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