clear_panelization

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that dry_run=true previews without writing and that dry_run=false requires an expected_sha256 from the preview, which is a meaningful safety protocol for a destructive operation. It does not elaborate on the effect of txid or what exactly 'remove panelization settings' entails, but the safety mechanism is well explained.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second explains the safe execution workflow. Every word earns its place, and the description is entirely 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?

The description covers the core usage pattern well with the dry_run workflow, and an output schema exists to describe return values. However, it omits the meaning of path and txid, and does not discuss transaction context despite a txid parameter, leaving some gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description must compensate. It explains the roles of dry_run and expected_sha256 and their relationship, but path and txid are not mentioned. This leaves those parameter semantics entirely to the schema, which lacks descriptions, so the compensation is incomplete.

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 uses a specific verb 'Remove' and identifies the resource 'panelization settings' from a 'PCB document', clearly distinguishing from the sibling tool set_panelization. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's primary function.

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 provides clear context on the two-step process: first run with dry_run=true to preview, then set dry_run=false only after inspecting the preview and providing the expected_sha256. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the purpose itself differentiates it from set_panelization, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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