Delete a specified circle, rectangle, or line from the Packet Tracer logical canvas using its id to clear unwanted drawings.
Remove a circle, rectangle or line from the logical canvas by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Note id as returned by `add_note` or `list_notes`. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| removed | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates state. The description adds context that the target is a drawing on the logical canvas keyed by id, beyond the boolean flags. Output schema exists, so return value need not be explained. Not a full 5 because it doesn't clarify irreversibility or permission requirements beyond the destructive hint.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb, no filler. Exactly the right length.
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 a simple one-param destructive tool with a full schema, annotations, and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could mention irreversibility or handling of missing ids, but the destructiveHint covers the main risk.
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 schema fully documents the 'id' parameter. The description adds the useful scope that id refers to drawings (circle, rectangle, line) on the logical canvas, which is minor added value. Baseline would be 3-4 with full coverage; this is compatible.
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?
States a specific verb (remove) and resource (circle, rectangle, line on logical canvas) scoped by id. Distinguishes from add-drawing operations, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling toolbar draw tool. Clear enough for selection.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor prerequisites (e.g., must exist first, ownership). Agent must infer context entirely from the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.