Prune checked anonymous wire tails

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

Annotations declare destructive=true and idempotent=false, and the description meaningfully adds to that: it enumerates exactly what is destroyed (unannotated leaves only) versus what survives (named wires, pins, isolated nets, overlapping conductors), and discloses refusal and compile/simulate/backup behavior. This is real depth beyond the annotation flags.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the removal scope leads, followed by preservation, invariants, refusal, and transaction semantics in tight sentences. No filler, though the telegraphic phrasing borders on terse.

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, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the destructive surface, safeguards (preview/backup/fresh hash), and refusal boundaries. Return values need no explanation absent an output schema.

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 path, confirm, expectedSha256, maxPasses, maxComparisons, project and workspace are already fully documented. The description gestures at the budget and hash (via 'fresh hash', 'exceeded budgets') but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the correct 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?

States a specific verb ('Remove') and a tightly scoped resource ('unannotated electrical leaf segments in GDF6 pin-bearing physical nets'), which cleanly separates it from gdf_edit and gdf_construct. The jargon is heavy but the intent is unambiguous to a domain agent.

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 'Remove only...' scoping and the preserve list implicitly tell the agent when this is appropriate, and the refusal conditions (unknown topology, exceeded budgets) bound its use. However, it never names an alternative tool or an explicit when-not condition, so routing versus siblings like gdf_edit remains inferred.

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