pcb_delete_diff_pair

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'delete' but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether the differential pair's components or tracks are affected), reversibility, or any confirmation steps. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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 extremely short (a single phrase) but lacks substance, making it under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It does not earn its brevity by conveying rich constraints; it omits essential behavioral context.

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 should clarify what gets deleted and any implications. It merely restates the action, offering no guidance on how the operation affects the board or how it relates to other diff-pair tools. The minimal context leaves the agent uncertain about consequences and prerequisites.

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 covers the single 'name' parameter with a description ('差分对名称'), providing 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning or context for the parameter beyond what the schema already declares, aligning with the baseline of 3.

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 '删除差分对' translates to 'delete differential pair', clearly indicating the action (delete) and the target resource (differential pair). It is specific enough to differentiate from other deletion tools like pcb_delete_tracks or pcb_delete_via, though it doesn't add extra scope or nuance beyond the literal translation.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus to alternatives like pcb_delete_tracks or pcb_list_diff_pairs. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as selecting a differential pair or its members, nor any conditions under which deletion is appropriate.

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