fritzing_remove_partRemove a specific part instance from a Fritzing sketch by reference. Use it to delete unwanted components from your .fzz file before rendering or validation.
Remove an instance from the sketch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | ||
| file | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers almost nothing. It implies a mutating, potentially destructive operation but does not disclose whether wires/connections attached to the part are also removed, whether the action is reversible, or what happens if the ref does not exist.
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?
It is a single short sentence with no waste and no padding, but its brevity comes from under-specification rather than discipline. Nothing is front-loaded because there is nothing else to order.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a two-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and undocumented parameters the description is far too thin. It omits prerequisites, side effects on surrounding wiring, and identification of the target instance.
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 0%, so the schema documents neither parameter, and the description says nothing about 'file' or 'ref'. The agent must guess that 'ref' identifies the instance to remove and what format it takes; the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 gives a clear verb ('Remove') and a resource ('an instance from the sketch'), but it never explains what an 'instance' or a 'ref' is, and the terminology diverges from siblings like fritzing_place_part and fritzing_move_part that operate on parts. It stops short of differentiating this tool from its near-siblings.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as fritzing_set_properties or fritzing_move_part. The agent must infer everything from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.