remove_text

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true; the description adds detail about removal and position tolerance (0.1mm). No contradictions, but lacks information on reversibility or file effects beyond 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?

Concise paragraph followed by clear args list; no wasted words. Front-loaded with main functionality; logically structured.

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 output schema exists, return values are not needed. Covers removal behavior and parameter use. Lacks details on error handling (e.g., if text not found), but overall sufficient for a removal tool.

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 coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter (text, x, y, schematic_path) and their interactions (e.g., conditional filtering). Adds significant value beyond the schema structure.

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 text annotation(s) by content, optionally filtered by position,' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_text' and 'remove_label,' though it could be more explicit about being for KiCad schematics.

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?

Explicitly states when to use positional filters: 'If x and y are provided, only removes texts matching both content AND position... Otherwise removes ALL texts with matching content.' Provides clear conditional logic, though no mention of when not to use the tool or alternatives.

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