pcb_delete_equal_length

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only restates the delete intent and gives no information about irreversibility, side effects on routed tracks/constraints, or whether confirmation is needed. 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 a single short Chinese phrase with no filler or repetition, making it concise and easy to parse. It is under-specified in content but structurally appropriate for such a simple tool and parameter set.

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 with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives the core operation but lacks context about expected outcomes, error conditions, or relationship to pcb_list_equal_lengths and pcb_create_equal_length. It is minimally viable but leaves behavioral 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%, with the single 'name' parameter described as '等长组名称'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already documents it adequately, so the baseline 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 '删除等长组' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (equal-length group), which aligns with the tool name and is easy to understand. However, it does not add differentiation from sibling deletion tools beyond the resource name, so it stops short of a 5.

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_diff_pair or pcb_delete_tracks. No mention of preconditions, related list/create tools, or scenarios where deletion is appropriate.

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