remove_wireDelete a wire segment from an LTspice .asc schematic by providing the file path and start/end coordinates, enabling precise circuit connection edits.
Remove a wire.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x1 | Yes | ||
| x2 | Yes | ||
| y1 | Yes | ||
| y2 | 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, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that – it does not say what is destroyed, whether removal is reversible, or what identifies the wire.
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 four-word sentence for a six-parameter destructive mutation tool is under-specification, not conciseness. There is no front-loaded detail because there is no detail at all.
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 five undocumented required parameters, the description omits everything an agent needs: how a wire is targeted, whether the removal is reversible, and what happens on failure. It is wholly inadequate for the tool's complexity.
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 17% (just workspace_root), leaving five required parameters (schematic_path, x1, y1, x2, y2) undocumented. The description does not explain that a wire is identified by its two endpoint coordinate pairs, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
"Remove a wire" restates the tool name and title almost verbatim, providing no information beyond the identifier itself. It does not distinguish this from sibling removal tools (remove_component, remove_junction, remove_net_label), so an agent gains nothing about scope or target.
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, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The description does not mention add_wire as its inverse, nor any condition under which removal is appropriate or blocked. Usage is left entirely to inference from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.