remove_dangling_tracks

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

The description adds that removal is iterative and defines 'dangling', which is helpful. However, given destructiveHint=true, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., file modification, irreversibility). Annotations already flag destructiveness, so description adds minimal new behavioral context.

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 concise at four sentences, with the purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, and the structure (purpose, process, definition, args) is clear with no wasted words.

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 simple tool (1 parameter, output schema present), the description covers the necessary aspects: what it does, how it works, and what parameter is needed. Could note return values but not essential. Lacks usage context but sufficient for its simplicity.

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 single parameter 'pcb_path' is described as 'Path to .kicad_pcb file', which adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type and default. With 0% schema coverage, this description compensates well.

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 'Detect and remove trace segments with unconnected endpoints.' It uses a specific verb ('remove') and resource ('dangling tracks/trace segments'). The iterative nature distinguishes it from generic remove_traces sibling tool.

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 implies use for cleaning up disconnected trace segments but does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives like remove_traces, nor does it provide prerequisites or 'when not to use' guidance.

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