pcb_delete_tracks

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 clearly indicates a destructive operation, but it does not mention side effects, undoability, what happens to connected nets, invalid-ID handling, or whether only track primitives are accepted. Basic intent is conveyed, but meaningful behavioral context is missing.

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 detail. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter destructive operation and every word contributes to stating the operation's purpose.

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 too thin. It lacks behavioral caveats, any usage context, and clarification of what the operation does to the broader PCB state. The schema covers the parameter, but the description alone is not enough for an agent to confidently invoke this tool in varied situations.

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%: the only parameter, primitiveIds, is described as "走线图元 ID 列表" (track primitive ID list). The tool description adds no meaning beyond restating the target resource, so the baseline score of 3 applies; it neither harms nor meaningfully enriches parameter understanding.

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 "删除走线" (delete tracks) states a specific action and target resource, making it clear that this tool deletes track primitives rather than vias, pours, or other objects. It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from sibling deletion tools like pcb_delete_via and pcb_delete_selected by the resource named, though it does not explicitly contrast those alternatives.

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 or pcb_delete_via. No prerequisites, exclusions, or use-case conditions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer which deletion operation fits a given situation.

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