Remove Hierarchical Sheet

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

The description goes beyond the annotations (which already indicate destructiveHint=true) by specifying exactly what gets removed: the (sheet ...) block and matching (sheet_instances) page entry. It also explicitly discloses what it does NOT do (delete the sub-sheet file), providing important behavioral nuance. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the operation, the second explains identification, and the third details scope and the file deletion caveat. It is front-loaded and free of unnecessary wording.

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 destructive tool, the description covers all relevant aspects: what gets removed, how to identify the target, and what is preserved. With an output schema present, return value details are not required. Given its moderate complexity and good annotations, the description is complete and contextually sound.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description does reiterate how sheetName and subsheetPath are matched (by name property and basename against file property), which adds slight emphasis, but it stays consistent with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter meaning.

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 a hierarchical-sheet reference from a parent schematic', identifying both verb and resource. It also differentiates from siblings by explicitly noting it's 'the reverse of add_hierarchical_sheet', making the purpose 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 provides clear context by framing the tool as the reverse of add_hierarchical_sheet, which implies when to use it. It also explains which sheet is affected via sheetName or subsheetPath and clarifies what is deleted (sheet block and sheet_instances entry). However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative tools for file deletion, though the note about not deleting the .kicad_sch file offers indirect guidance.

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