remove_net_labelDelete a net label from an LTspice schematic at specified coordinates to clean up or modify your circuit design.
Remove a net label.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | ||
| y | Yes | ||
| name | No | ||
| 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 description need not restate these. But it also adds no context about what exactly gets destroyed (the label only, or attached wires?), whether removal is reversible, or what permissions are needed. For a destructive mutation, the description carries minimal added value beyond the annotation flags.
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 sentence that is technically concise and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently brief. Brevity here fails to earn its place because the tool's destructive nature and parameter complexity demand more detail.
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 5 parameters, 20% schema coverage, no output schema, and destructive annotations, the description is far too thin. It omits parameter meaning, side effects of removal, and any distinction from sibling removal tools. An agent cannot fully understand the complete behavior from this definition.
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?
With 5 parameters and only 20% schema description coverage, the description is silent on all parameters. The schema documents workspace_root but leaves x, y, name, and schematic_path undocumented anywhere. The description should clarify what name identifies and whether x/y are required coordinates, but it does nothing to compensate for the low coverage.
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 states a specific verb (Remove) and resource (net label), which is clear enough that an agent knows exactly what operation it performs. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like remove_wire or remove_junction beyond the resource name, leaving purpose minimally viable.
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 indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any preconditions or context. An agent must infer usage entirely from the name and must already know what a net label is to select this tool. No guidance on when removal is appropriate is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.