remove_stubs

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint/idempotentHint annotations by disclosing exactly what gets destroyed (ends snapped, ends cut back to a tap/via, whole segments deleted), that the board's copper is checked directly when geometric=true, and the safety guarantee that every change is verified and the run aborts if unrouted connections increase. That is the kind of mutation-safety context an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then dense but relevant detail. Every sentence carries information about behavior or safety, though the parenthetical about Fusion re-anchoring is compact enough to be easily skimmed past.

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, idempotent mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what is changed, the default parameter behavior, and the safety guarantees. The remaining gaps (meaning of max_rounds, permission/undo interaction) are minor given the annotations already declare the safety profile.

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 carry parameter meaning. It does explain 'geometric=true (default)' as additionally checking the board's copper directly, but it never mentions max_rounds or what a 'round' does, leaving one of two parameters undocumented anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fix trace stubs') and then precisely defines what a stub is and what happens to each kind (snap to pad centre, cut back to last junction, or delete the segment). No sibling tool in the list overlaps with this operation, so it is cleanly distinguishable.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the note that Fusion re-anchors trace ends off-centre when a part rotates, and that Fusion's DRC misses some stubs, tells the agent when stubs arise and why DRC alone is insufficient. However, there is no explicit 'use this after X / before Y' instruction and no named alternative to run_drc, so the agent must infer the trigger conditions.

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