pcb_delete_selected

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says 'delete currently selected objects' and does not disclose irreversibility, whether a confirmation occurs, what happens when nothing is selected, or the exact scope (though the pcb_ prefix hints at PCB context). This is thin for a destructive mutation.

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?

A single short sentence, perfectly sized for a zero-parameter tool. No filler, no redundant restatement, and every word contributes to the action and target.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the one-liner is minimally viable but leaves gaps: no behavior on an empty selection, no undo or destructive warning, and no return/result description. Since the tool is simple and parameterless, these gaps are noticeable but not fatal.

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?

There are zero parameters and an empty schema, so the baseline is 4. The description identifies the implicit input — the current selection — and needs to describe no parameter syntax. It adds just enough context for a parameterless tool.

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 clear verb ('删除' / delete) and a resource ('当前选中的对象' / currently selected objects). It is more specific than a tautology and implies a generic delete operation on the active selection, which distinguishes it from type-specific delete siblings such as pcb_delete_tracks or pcb_delete_via, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 generic deletion tool versus the many specific delete siblings (tracks, vias, pours, keepouts, diff pairs, equal lengths). The qualifier 'current selected' is the only implicit usage signal; there are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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