pcb_delete_pour

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply says 'Delete copper pour' without revealing that this is a destructive operation, whether it is reversible, or if there are any impacts on connected traces or nets. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient transparency.

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, direct phrase with zero waste, which is appropriately concise. It front-loads the core action. However, it is arguably too terse—it could include a sentence about usage or effects without losing conciseness. Still, it is free of filler.

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?

Given the tool is a delete operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least mention that it deletes the specified copper pour primitive and possibly note that it is destructive or cannot be undone. The current description is minimal and leaves the agent without enough context to predict side effects or errors. For a 1-parameter tool, it is still incomplete.

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 has 100% coverage for the one parameter (primitiveId) with description '铺铜图元 ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the tool does not need to compensate for missing parameter info.

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 '删除铺铜' translates to 'Delete copper pour', which clearly names the action (delete) and the resource (copper pour). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like pcb_delete_tracks or pcb_delete_keepout. However, it does not elaborate on the scope or effect, so it misses a tiny bit of clarity.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context. Sibling tools like pcb_delete_selected or pcb_delete_keepout exist, and there is no mention of when to choose this one. It only states the action without situational advice.

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