remove_component

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., irreversibility, side effects on connected nets, or behavior if the reference doesn't exist). It is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction, but it does not go beyond what annotations and the verb 'Remove' imply.

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 two sentences plus a neatly formatted Args list. Every sentence is purposeful, information is front-loaded, and there is no fluff. It earns a perfect score for conciseness and structure.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, 1 required) and the existence of an output schema, the description fully covers the purpose, parameters, and file context. The optional schematic_path behavior is clearly noted. No meaningful gaps remain.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions, but the description's Args section explains both parameters clearly: 'reference' with an example ('U2') and 'schematic_path' with its purpose and optional behavior. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions and adds practical detail.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Remove a component') and the specific method ('by reference designator'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_footprint (PCB) or remove_hierarchical_label. The resource and action are immediately clear.

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 provides clear context by specifying the schematic file path and the reference designator, implying it is for schematic components. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the naming and parameters make the appropriate use case evident. No exclusion criteria are given, so a 4 is appropriate.

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