pcb_delete_equal_length

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'delete equal-length group' and does not state whether deletion is irreversible, whether related tracks or design rules are affected, or what happens to the group's name after deletion.

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 efficient sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately concise, though it is arguably too terse because it omits behavioral and contextual details.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what 'equal-length group' means in this PCB context, whether the operation is reversible, or what the result is, leaving the agent without key information for a delete operation.

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 schema describes the only parameter 'name' as 'equal-length group name' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so it is correctly at the baseline for fully schema-documented parameters.

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 the verb 'delete' and the resource 'equal-length group', so the core operation is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling deletion tools, but the resource name already sets it apart from pcb_delete_tracks, pcb_delete_via, pcb_delete_pour, pcb_delete_keepout, and pcb_delete_diff_pair.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pcb_delete_selected or how prerequisites like an existing equal-length group should be verified. The description neither provides exclusions nor names alternative tools, so the agent receives no decision support.

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