remove_traces

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds important behavioral context: it does not remove vias, and it requires at least one filter. It also specifies units (mm) for the bounding box parameters. However, it does not discuss irreversibility or file saving implications, which the destructive annotation partially covers.

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 concise and well-structured. It opens with a clear one-sentence purpose, states the filter requirement, then presents a compact Args list. There is no redundant or unnecessary 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?

With 7 parameters and a schema coverage of 0%, the description covers all inputs thoroughly. It also includes a constraint and notes about vias. The presence of an output schema handles return value documentation. Minor omissions include edge-case behavior (e.g., no matching traces), but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 input schema provides zero descriptions for parameters (0% coverage). The description compensates fully with an Args section that explains each parameter: net_name, layer (with examples like 'F.Cu'), bounding box edges (in mm), and pcb_path (optional with default behavior). This completely addresses parameter semantics.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove trace segments matching the given filters.' It also explicitly notes 'Does not remove vias,' which differentiates it from other removal tools like remove_label, remove_wire, and remove_footprint that operate on different PCB elements.

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 clear usage context by explaining the filters and stating 'At least one filter (net_name, layer, or bounding box) is required.' It also gives an exclusion ('Does not remove vias'), but it does not explicitly name alternative tools for handling vias or other objects, so it lacks explicit alternative guidance.

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