delete_trace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that deletion may cause connectivity regression, that distances are always in millimeters, and that dry_run previews without writing. It also explains the expected_sha256 handshake. It does not mention undo/transaction behavior or auth, but the disclosed safety semantics are substantial.

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?

Three sentences cover purpose, units, and a safe invocation workflow with no filler. Information is front-loaded and every sentence adds meaningful guidance.

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 critical safety workflow and units, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. However, given the tool's complexity and the absence of annotations, the lack of detail about the selector object and transaction-related parameters prevents this from being fully complete. It is adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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 coverage is 0% and the description compensates only partially. It explains dry_run, expected_sha256, and allow_connectivity_regression indirectly, but says nothing about the required selector field or the optional path/txid parameters. The selector is a required nested object and is left entirely unexplained, which is a significant gap for a destructive tool.

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 opens with 'Delete selected traces', which is a specific verb+resource combination that clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like delete_wire and delete_via. It also adds the important scope qualifier about connectivity regression requiring opt-in.

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 workflow guidance: use dry_run=true to preview, then set dry_run=false only after inspecting the preview and passing expected_sha256. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the dry-run/opt-in context effectively tells the agent when and how to invoke safely.

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