remove_junction

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true, which aligns with the description's 'Remove' action. The description adds limited context by specifying that schematic_path is optional and falls back to a configured default, but it does not disclose details such as irreversibility or behavior if the junction is not found. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and uses a clean bullet-style list for parameters. Every sentence contributes useful information; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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, three-parameter destructive tool with annotations and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It clearly states what the tool does and how to invoke it, though it could mention the file-modifying effect explicitly. However, the destructiveHint annotation covers this, and the output schema covers return values, so the description suffices.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It explicitly defines x as X position, y as Y position, and thoroughly explains schematic_path as a path to the .kicad_sch file, noting it is optional with a default. This adds significant semantic value beyond the bare schema types.

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 states a specific action ('Remove a junction') on a specific resource ('at the given coordinates'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling removal tools like remove_wire or remove_label. The verb-noun pairing is unambiguous and contextually appropriate.

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 implicit usage context by requiring coordinates and an optional schematic path, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. It is clear that this tool is for junctions specifically, yet direct guidance on when not to use it is absent.

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