Delete a specific design rule by exact name from the active PCB to remove outdated or conflicting constraints before running DRC or finalizing the board.
Delete a design rule by name from the active PCB.
Args: name: Exact name of the design rule to delete
Returns: Dictionary confirming deletion
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for a destructive mutation. It confirms deletion happens but says nothing about irreversibility, whether built-in/system rules can be deleted, what happens if the name doesn't match any rule, or the permission state required.
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?
Front-loaded with the action and resource in the first sentence, then cleanly separated Args/Returns. Slight waste in the 'Returns: Dictionary confirming deletion' line, which duplicates the output schema, but nothing is bloated.
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?
An output schema exists, so the return explanation is not strictly needed, and the core action is stated. Gaps remain around no-match behavior and deletability of built-in rules, which matter for a destructive single-parameter tool with no annotations.
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%, so the description must compensate; it does add one meaningful qualifier ('exact name'), implying no wildcards or prefix matching. However it does not specify case sensitivity, whether fully qualified scope prefixes are needed, or where to obtain valid names, leaving real ambiguity for a single required parameter.
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 (delete) and resource (design rule) with a clear scope qualifier ('from the active PCB'), which distinguishes it from library-level or project-level operations. It does not name or differentiate itself from nearby siblings like pcb_create_design_rule, pcb_get_design_rules, or pcb_set_rule_properties, but the operation itself is 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?
No guidance on when to use this versus pcb_set_rule_properties (disable a rule) or pcb_set_rules_enabled, no prerequisites, and no mention of how to discover rule names (e.g., via pcb_get_design_rules). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.