lib_delete_footprint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses that the footprint is removed and deregistered, the .PcbLib is marked dirty, no disk write occurs immediately, saving must be done via app_save_all or proj_save, and a missing name produces FOOTPRINT_NOT_FOUND.

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 front-loaded with the core action and save-behavior warning, then provides clear Args and Returns sections. The short 'Reported:' incident note reinforces the non-saving behavior but is somewhat redundant with the preceding explanation, keeping it just below maximally concise.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, the description is complete enough to call correctly. It covers scope, error behavior, dirty-state semantics, deferred-save behavior, parameter meanings, and the return shape despite an output schema being present.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters. It defines footprint_name as the name in the library and library_path as an optional absolute .PcbLib path defaulting to the currently focused library document.

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 states a specific verb and resource: delete one footprint from a PCB library (.PcbLib). It also clarifies the exact granularity by saying it deletes a single named footprint and does not perform wildcard mass-delete, which distinguishes it from broader or primitive-level delete operations.

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 gives clear context for when the tool applies: deleting a single named footprint, with an error if the name is missing and no wildcard mass-delete. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as lib_delete_component or lib_delete_footprint_primitives, so it falls short of full alternative-routing guidance.

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