pcb_remove_teardrops

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does disclose a key behavioral trait: this is not a silent API call but a modal-dialog operation requiring a Remove selection and confirmation inside Altium, which implies a blocking UI dependency. It does not say what happens on cancel, whether the dialog stays open, or whether the caller can confirm programmatically.

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?

Two short sentences, action and scope front-loaded, with the interaction caveat second. Every clause adds information an agent needs.

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 and there are no parameters, so the description need not cover returns or arguments. The only residual gap is behavioral edge cases around the dialog (cancellation, non-appearance), which the description does not address.

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. No schema burden is left uncovered.

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 resource ('teardrops') with an explicit scope qualifier ('board-wide'), which distinguishes it from the add counterpart it names. An agent can tell immediately what this does and how it relates to pcb_add_teardrops without opening a schema.

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 explains the actual interaction path: the same modal as pcb_add_teardrops opens, the agent must choose Remove, and confirm in Altium. That is actionable context for invocation. It stops short of stating preconditions or what to do if the dialog does not appear, so it is not a full when/when-not treatment.

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