pcb_delete_invalid_objects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so reasonably: it says this deletes geometry, scopes the blast radius narrowly (degenerate zero-length/zero-area primitives only), and notes it acts on the 'active PCB.' It omits undo/reversibility and whether the operation is transactional, which keeps it from a 5.

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 target, and the whole definition is three short sentences. The closing 'Returns the count removed. Returns: {"removed": N}.' restates the same fact twice, a small redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, narrowly scoped mutation the description covers what is removed and the result shape; an output schema already exists, so repeating the return payload is optional rather than required. Missing only reversibility/side-effect notes.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The stated scope ('active PCB') usefully implies the implicit target of the operation.

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 and resource ('Remove degenerate primitives from the active PCB') and enumerates the target classes: zero-length tracks and zero-area regions. This makes it distinct from broad cleanup siblings like pcb_cleanup_tracks, though it never names them explicitly.

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 parenthetical 'board hygiene that accumulates from edits and imports' implies when to reach for it, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative versus pcb_cleanup_tracks, pcb_unroute, or pcb_delete_object.

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