Remove Schematic Component Property

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces that it removes a property. It adds useful behavioral context by clarifying that built-in fields are protected from removal and pointing to an alternative for those cases. No contradictions with annotations are present.

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 appropriately short: one sentence for purpose and a follow-up for restrictions/alternatives. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words.

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 annotations (destructiveHint=true) and complete schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, key restriction, and alternative usage. The presence of an output schema means return-value details are not necessary for the description.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with each parameter described (e.g., 'Custom property name to remove'). The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Remove a single custom property from a placed schematic symbol.' It specifies a verb (Remove), a resource (custom property on a placed schematic symbol), and differentiates from siblings like edit_schematic_component by noting that built-in fields cannot be removed.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance: it states that built-in fields cannot be removed and names the alternative tool (edit_schematic_component) with a specific workaround (set value to empty string). This directly addresses when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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