remove_wire

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds matching tolerance and order independence, but does not disclose additional behaviors like whether only one wire is removed, what happens on no match, or if the operation is undoable.

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 very concise: one sentence for purpose, one for tolerance/prerequisite, and a bulleted argument list. No redundant or 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?

Given the simple destructive action and existing output schema, the description covers the needed context (tolerance, prerequisite, parameter meanings). It could mention that it only affects schematic wires and not PCB traces, but the tool name and path parameter imply this.

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 adds parameter meanings ('Start X', etc.) but these are minimal and do not specify units or coordinate system. The schematic_path description duplicates the schema title. The added value is adequate but not rich.

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 the action ('Remove a wire segment') and the identifying method ('by its endpoint coordinates'), distinguishing it from sibling removal tools like remove_component or remove_footprint.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on tolerance (0.1mm) and order independence, and recommends using list_schematic_wires first. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like remove_traces or remove_junction.

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