rip_up

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true but not the details; the description adds substantial value by disclosing that traces/vias convert to unrouted connections rather than being lost, that polygons/pours are preserved, and that a ripped net's pours remain unfilled (with a version reference). This is exactly the beyond-annotation behavioral context an agent needs to avoid a costly mistake.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the caveat, with no filler. The parenthetical version stamp '(2705.1.15)' is slightly inside-baseball but the warning it attaches to is substantive, so only a minor deduction.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, it covers what is destroyed, what is kept, and a non-obvious side effect, which is strong. The only real gap is the undefined behavior of the null/default 'nets' argument.

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% for the single 'nets' parameter, so the description must carry the load, and it only references 'a ripped-up net' obliquely. It neither confirms the list-of-net-names format nor explains the nullable default (what happens when nets is omitted), leaving a meaningful 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?

States a specific verb (remove) and resource (routed traces and vias), then clarifies the resulting state ('become unrouted connections again'), which separates it from sibling mutation tools like clean_vias or undo. An agent knows exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-be-careful rule ('avoid ripping up nets that have pours, or re-add their pours after'), which is real usage guidance. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives (e.g., undo, route_net) or a full when-to-use/when-not matrix, so it falls just short of a 5.

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