remove_footprint

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

The destructiveHint annotation already indicates this operation is destructive. The description adds minor behavioral context by noting pcb_path is optional, but does not elaborate on side effects or error conditions (e.g., footprint not found). Given the annotation covers the main safety concern, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 brief and well-structured, with a one-sentence summary followed by an Args section. Every sentence adds value without extraneous content.

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 simple destructive tool with only two parameters and an output schema present, the description is adequately complete. It covers the essential usage and arguments, though it omits potential edge-case behavior like error handling for missing footprints. Given the low complexity, this is acceptable.

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 description provides concrete semantics beyond the schema for both parameters: 'reference' is explained with an example ('R1'), and 'pcb_path' is described as an optional path with a default behavior. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'Remove a footprint by reference designator', specifying the action (remove), the resource (footprint), and the key parameter (reference designator). This distinguishes it from sibling operations like remove_component or remove_label.

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 makes the usage context clear: it targets PCB footprints with a reference designator, and mentions the optional pcb_path for specifying the file. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like remove_component, but the context is sufficiently clear for a single-purpose tool.

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