remove_footprint

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the tool is known to modify data. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., irreversible action, side effects on connectivity).

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?

Description is short and directly states purpose with argument explanations. Could be improved with clearer formatting but is efficient.

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?

With an output schema (unseen) and annotations, the description is minimally adequate for a simple removal tool. However, it lacks usage context and error scenarios.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description provides needed semantics: 'reference' is explained with an example ('R1'), and 'pcb_path' is described as a file path. However, no constraints or format details are given.

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 it removes a footprint by reference designator, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling removal tools like remove_component or remove_hierarchical_sheet by targeting footprints.

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 tool versus alternatives, such as when a footprint should be removed vs. moving or modifying it. No preconditions mentioned (e.g., footprint must exist).

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