remove_component_symbol_drawingRemove a component symbol drawing from an LTspice .asy file by specifying its index. Use this to delete an unwanted symbol definition from a schematic library.
Remove one symbol drawing by index.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| index | Yes | ||
| asy_path | Yes | ||
| workspace_root | No | Optional per-call workspace root override. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether the removal is reversible, whether the file is rewritten in place, or that removing by index may shift the indices of subsequent drawings (relevant given idempotentHint=false).
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?
A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of the under-specification problem rather than a virtue here.
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 mutation with two required, largely undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. It gives the agent no confirmation of what gets deleted, how the target is located, or what happens to the symbol file afterward.
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 coverage is only 33%, with only workspace_root documented in the schema. The description adds only 'by index', which hints that index selects the drawing, but leaves asy_path (the target file) completely unexplained in both schema and description.
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?
States a specific verb (Remove) and resource (symbol drawing) with the selection key (by index), which is enough to distinguish it from add_component_symbol_drawing and the other remove_* siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with the add/create counterparts or scope the resource further, 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?
No guidance on when to use this versus add_component_symbol_drawing, set_component_symbol_pin/text, or the other symbol tools. No prerequisites, no mention of what state the .asy file must be in, and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.