remove_instructionDelete a directive or comment containing specified text from an LTspice .asc schematic. Provide the schematic path and target text to delete that line.
Remove a directive or comment containing text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| schematic_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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the matching semantic ('containing text'), which is useful behavior context. It does not, however, disclose what happens when zero or multiple directives match, whether the match is exact or substring, or whether removal is reversible.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity arguably leaves valuable detail on the table for a destructive mutation tool.
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 tool with no output schema and only 33% parameter coverage, the description omits key context: the ambiguity of text matching, error behavior on no-match, and the role of schematic_path. It is not complete enough to invoke confidently.
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 only 33% (just workspace_root). The description gives marginal meaning to 'text' as the content to match, but says nothing about schematic_path, which is a required parameter. With low coverage, the description needed to compensate for the undocumented required parameters and does not.
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 (directive or comment), and defines what an 'instruction' is by equating it to a directive/comment. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling add_instruction. However, it does not explain which structure holds instructions or how they are identified beyond the text match.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as add_instruction or the various other remove_* siblings. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name and verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.