pcb_delete_diff_pair

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a destructive operation but does not mention whether associated tracks, vias, or routing are also removed, whether the deletion is reversible, or what happens when the named differential pair does not exist.

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 a single short sentence with no filler. The action and object are immediately visible, and every character contributes meaning.

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 single-parameter delete operation, the description is minimally usable because the schema already documents the parameter. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks side-effect and failure-mode context, leaving the agent unable to predict the full impact of a destructive call.

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?

The input schema already documents the only parameter, 'name', with the description '差分对名称'. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond that, so the baseline score of 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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 '删除差分对' clearly states a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('differential pair'), so the core purpose is unambiguous and distinguishable from delete-tracks or delete-via tools. However, it does not explicitly disambiguate from pcb_delete_selected or state that deletion is by name rather than by selection.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pcb_delete_selected, pcb_delete_equal_length, or pcb_delete_tracks. No prerequisites or conditions are provided; the intended usage is only implied by the tool name and resource type.

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