delete_wire

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers the safety profile: it preserves net connectivity, always uses millimeters regardless of document units, and details the dry_run and expected_sha256 mechanism. This is model transparency for a destructive operation.

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 three concise sentences with purpose front-loaded. Every sentence carries essential information: scope, unit behavior, and the confirmation workflow. No wasted words.

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?

For a destructive tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential protocol and unit caveat. Minor omissions like txid and path semantics are acceptable given the focus on safety and the presence of an output schema.

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%, but the description explains dry_run and expected_sha256 in actionable terms. It does not explain path, txid, or selector structure, but the most critical safety parameters are well documented.

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 states a specific action ('Delete selected schematic wires') and a key constraint ('without touching net connectivity'), clearly distinguishing it from PCB trace deletion tools like delete_trace. The resource and scope are unambiguous.

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?

It provides a clear safety workflow: use dry_run=true to preview, then set dry_run=false only after inspecting the preview and passing expected_sha256. It implies when not to use (only after preview), but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to prefer them.

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