Clear PCB Routing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses what is deleted and what remains, which is good. However, it does not mention the behavior of the optional 'only_nets' and 'ignore_nets' parameters, which could affect the deletion scope. The blanket statement 'Delete PCB tracks...' might mislead an agent into thinking all routing is always cleared, ignoring net filtering.

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: two sentences. The first states the core function clearly, and the second provides a pointer to detailed instructions. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

This is a mutation tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the destructive scope but omits crucial details about the optional net-filtering parameters, potential side effects, or return values. The pointer to instructions helps but does not make the description self-sufficient. Overall, the description is incomplete for an agent to safely invoke the tool with only_nets/ignore_nets.

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 only 33% (only 'path' is described). The description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters 'only_nets' and 'ignore_nets', offering no explanation of their meaning, format, or interaction with the deletion behavior. The description adds no value beyond the minimal path description.

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 function with a specific verb ('Delete') and defines the exact scope: PCB tracks, track arcs, and vias. It also explicitly notes what is preserved (placement, zones, outline), which differentiates it from routing tools like auto_route_pcb and layout tools.

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 implies usage (clearing routing before re-routing) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites, though referencing the instructions document provides some context. However, no direct guidance is given about when to prefer this over auto_route_pcb or other PCB tools.

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