Delete Schematic Component

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that the symbol definition in lib_symbols is not removed, and explains the nuanced behavior of deleteAttachedLabels including edge cases (labels still attached to wires or other pins survive) and default rationale. This adds significant behavioral context not inferable from annotations alone.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence, followed by compact paragraphs for scope, parameter behavior, and alternative. Every sentence adds value, and the length is appropriate for the tool's nuance without unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's complexity, the annotation (destructive), and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete: it explains the scope, side effects, parameter semantics, file type, and sibling alternative. The agent has all the information needed to invoke the tool safely and correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds substantial meaning for deleteAttachedLabels, clarifying its effect, default, and why it exists. It does not add much for reference or schematicPath, but the parameter itself is already well-described in the schema. Overall the extra semantic detail justifies a score above baseline.

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 tool removes a placed symbol from a KiCAD schematic (.kicad_sch), distinguishing it from deleting the symbol definition. It also explicitly contrasts with delete_component for PCB footprints, ensuring the correct tool is selected.

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 provides clear when-to-use guidance: use this for schematic symbols, and explicitly redirects PCB footprint removal to delete_component. It also explains when deleteAttachedLabels is recommended (permanently removing a wired part) and notes backward compatibility trade-offs.

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