remove_testpoints

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the dry-run preview behavior, the unit convention (millimetres regardless of document units), and the removal of net/pattern references. However, it does not mention how locked testpoints are handled, whether the operation is reversible, or any permission requirements. For a mutating tool, this is a notable gap.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the primary action first, then adds the critical unit note and the dry-run safety workflow in two subsequent sentences. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.

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 tool has moderate complexity with six parameters and no annotations, but the description covers the essential safety workflow and unit behavior. However, it omits guidance on how to specify the target testpoints (selector, path, txid) and the allow_locked parameter. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but parameter contexts are incomplete.

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 no per-parameter descriptions are present in the input schema. The description explains dry_run and expected_sha256, but leaves path, txid, selector, and allow_locked unexplained. Since only two of six parameters are given context, the description does not adequately compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 clearly states the action ('Remove'), the resource ('explicit standalone-pad testpoints'), and the additional scope ('and their net/pattern references'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_testpoints, add_testpoints, and move_testpoints, which perform other operations on testpoints.

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 usage guidance for the destructive workflow: use dry_run=true to preview, then set dry_run=false only after inspecting the preview and supplying expected_sha256. This is explicit safety guidance, though it does not discuss when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention prerequisites like selectors.

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