pcb_delete_pour

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'delete' without warning that the operation is destructive, irreversible, or what happens to associated copper-pour data; this is a meaningful gap.

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 compact four-character phrase with no filler or redundancy. While minimal, every word contributes to stating the core operation.

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 one-parameter delete tool the description is minimally sufficient: the agent knows the action and the schema supplies the required input. However, it omits guidance on how to obtain primitiveId, whether the action is undoable, and any side effects, so there are clear 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 coverage is 100%: the only parameter, primitiveId, is described as '铺铜图元 ID' (copper pour primitive ID). The description adds no extra meaning beyond this, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 a specific action and resource: delete a copper pour ('删除铺铜'), which is distinct from sibling tools like pcb_delete_via or pcb_delete_keepout. It doesn't add detail beyond the tool name, so it is clear but not enriched.

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 on when to invoke this tool instead of pcb_delete_selected or other deletion tools, and there are no prerequisites or exclusions. The intended usage must be inferred from the name and the required primitiveId.

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