remove_label

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true. The description adds behavioral detail about positional tolerance (0.1mm) and the conditional behavior between filtered vs. bulk removal. It could further disclose potential side effects on net naming, but the additional context is valuable.

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 a single concise paragraph with formatted 'Args:' list. Every sentence contributes purpose or parameter clarification. No redundant or vague statements.

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 tool with 4 parameters (1 required), the input semantics are well-covered. The output schema exists but is not detailed in the description; however, the description is not required to explain return values. Error conditions or success indicators are missing, but overall completeness is high.

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 carries the full burden. It explains the 'text' parameter with an example ('e.g. 'VCC', 'PGND''), clarifies 'x' and 'y' as optional with tolerance, and defines 'schematic_path' as 'Path to .kicad_sch file'. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type and title.

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 net label(s) by text, optionally filtered by position.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'remove_text' (which may remove any text) and 'remove_junction'. The verb 'Remove' and resource 'net label(s)' are specific.

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 explicit conditional guidance: 'If x and y are provided, only removes labels matching both text AND position (within 0.1mm tolerance). Otherwise removes ALL labels with matching text.' This helps the agent decide when to use positional filters. However, it does not mention when to prefer this tool over siblings like 'remove_text'.

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