delete_via

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: distances are always in millimetres regardless of document units, and the dry-run + expected_sha256 safety mechanism prevents unintended writes. This goes beyond what the schema provides, though it does not mention permissions, rollback, or transaction requirements.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action. The sentence 'Input schema: diptrace://schemas/tool-inputs' is redundant with the provided input schema and adds no value, slightly reducing efficiency. Otherwise, it is well-structured and readable.

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 essential safety workflow (dry-run, expected_sha256) and units, but it lacks guidance on transaction context (e.g., whether to use inside a transaction) and does not explain the nested selector object. Given the tool's destructive nature and complexity, the absence of these details makes it incomplete. The output schema exists but does not replace operational context.

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%, and the description does not explain critical parameters like selector, path, txid, or expected_sha256. It implies the roles of dry_run and expected_sha256 through behavioral guidance, but leaves 5 parameters' semantics largely to the schema. The 'all distances in millimetres' note touches selector geometry but does not compensate for the overall 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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'Remove ViaStyle from selected trace points.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like add_via, move_via, and set_via_style by focusing on removing an aspect of vias. No ambiguity.

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 operational guidance: 'dry_run=true previews without writing. Set dry_run=false only after inspecting the preview and pass its expected_sha256.' This tells when to use the tool and the required safety workflow. It does not explicitly compare with alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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