Delete Symbol

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds the file type context (.kicad_sym), but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as reversibility, prerequisites, or effects on references. This matches the baseline for annotation-covered tools.

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 communicates the essential action and target. There is no waste or redundancy.

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 deletion tool with two well-documented parameters, a clear schema, and annotations indicating destructive behavior, the description is largely complete. It could be enhanced by a note about when to use it or potential side effects, but given the low complexity, it is sufficient.

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%: both 'name' and 'libraryPath' have clear descriptions. The tool description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Remove' and identifies the resource as 'a symbol from a .kicad_sym library file.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_component, delete_graphic, and delete_schematic_component.

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 implies usage for deleting symbols from KiCad symbol library files, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. With many sibling delete tools, some explicit guidance would improve the score.

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