pcb_delete_keepout

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'delete keepout' and does not mention whether deletion is permanent, whether it affects other PCB elements, or how the primitiveId should be obtained.

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 concise and front-loaded with no filler. While it is perhaps too sparse to provide complete context, it is not bloated and every word is relevant.

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?

The tool is simple with one fully documented required parameter and no output schema, so the minimum information needed to invoke it is present. However, the absence of behavioral and usage context leaves meaningful gaps for an agent deciding whether to perform this destructive operation.

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%, so the required primitiveId parameter is already documented. The description adds no additional meaning about how to acquire or validate the ID, 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 '删除禁布区' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (keepout area), so the basic purpose is understandable. However, it essentially restates the tool name and does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling delete tools beyond the resource type.

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_pour. It provides no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual hints.

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