kicad_ctrl_propose_ripup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool enumerates removals but does not mention whether it is read-only, requires permissions, or handles errors. The description lacks details on side effects or safety, which are critical for a tool in a destructive workflow.

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 extremely concise, using only two short sentences. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the important usage instruction is clearly highlighted. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the presence of an output schema (as indicated by context signals), the description need not explain return values. The tool has two simple parameters and no nested objects. The description adequately covers the core action and workflow guidance, missing only behavioral details that would ideally come from annotations.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters (project_path and net_names). The description adds no additional context about parameters, but baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Station 2: Propose rip-up — enumerate what would be removed.' It directly describes the action of proposing a rip-up and listing removals, distinguishing it from sibling tools like kicad_ctrl_execute_ripup.

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 includes an explicit usage guideline: 'Review the proposal before proceeding. Ask the operator to approve before calling kicad_ctrl_execute_ripup.' This tells the agent to seek approval before execution, establishing a clear workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives.

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