pcb_delete_tracks

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'delete tracks' but does not mention side effects (e.g., irreversible removal), error handling for invalid IDs, or scope limitations. 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 consists of a single concise phrase with no wasted words. However, it is only a translation of the tool name, offering no extra information. Conciseness is good, but it borders on tautological.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context. It does not explain the return value, potential failures (e.g., invalid IDs), or whether the operation affects other elements. The low complexity of the tool does not excuse the absence of these details.

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 fully describes the only parameter primitiveIds with a Chinese description '走线图元 ID 列表' (track primitive ID list). Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline for well-documented parameters.

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' clearly translates to 'Delete tracks', specifying a verb (delete) and a resource (tracks). It distinguishes from sibling tools by the resource type, but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name in Chinese without additional nuance.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pcb_delete_selected or pcb_delete_via. No context about typical scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions is provided.

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