pcb_delete_keepout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys the destructive delete action but says nothing about scope, reversibility, permissions, or what happens to connected design data. This is minimal but not contradictory.

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 phrase with no filler or redundant clauses. For a one-parameter delete operation, this is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 operation is simple and the parameter is fully documented, so the minimal description is arguably sufficient. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the agent receives no information about side effects, return value, or failure behavior, leaving some gaps.

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 100%, so primitiveId is already documented. The description adds no extra meaning or usage detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline for fully 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 '删除禁布区' states a specific action (delete) and resource (keepout area), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like pcb_delete_selected or pcb_delete_pour, but the keepout-specific target is clear.

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 usage context is provided: there is no statement about when to delete a keepout by primitiveId versus using pcb_delete_selected or other deletion tools. The intended scenario is only implied by the tool name and parameter schema.

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