Delete Schematic Net Label

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

The description merely restates the destructive nature already captured by the destructiveHint annotation. It adds no additional context about side effects on connected elements, behavior when the label is not found, or whether the operation is undoable, missing an opportunity to add value beyond structured metadata.

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, direct sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple deletion operation and front-loaded with the core action.

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?

The description is minimal but sufficient for a straightforward destructive operation. With complete schema, annotations, and an output schema present, it does not need to explain return values. It could mention the position-based disambiguation, but that is already documented in the schema, so overall completeness is strong.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any information about parameters beyond what the schema already provides; it stays at baseline without enhancing understanding of the parameters.

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 action ('Remove') and the target ('net label'), and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like add_schematic_net_label and move_schematic_net_label. The verb-resource pairing is specific and unambiguous.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no preconditions, and no exclusions. It does not mention that the optional position parameter is used to disambiguate when multiple labels share the same name, which is a relevant usage consideration.

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