eda_pcb_document_clear_routing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the return type 'Promise<boolean>' and the type parameter, but does not explain what the boolean indicates (e.g., success, whether any routing was cleared), whether the operation is irreversible, if it affects the entire board or only selected nets, or if it triggers a canvas refresh. These are significant unknowns for a mutating 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 is extremely brief, consisting of the function signature and a two-word Chinese phrase. While it is concise, it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. There is no front-loading of key information beyond the signature, and the Chinese phrase adds little. It is acceptable but not well structured for an AI agent.

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 mutating operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the effect on the design, the meaning of the return value, or how to select specific nets/connections. The agent would need to guess at the behavior and parameter formatting, making this incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 only describes an 'args' array with generic items and a 'windowId'. The description's inclusion of the function signature with the 'type' parameter and its literal values ('all' | 'net' | 'connection') provides some semantic meaning beyond the schema, but the meaning of each option and how the args array should be structured for different types is not explained. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description adds a little but not enough to fully clarify parameter usage.

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 the function name and the Chinese phrase '清除布线' meaning 'clear routing'. This identifies the action (clearing routing) and the target resource (the PCB document). It is distinct from sibling tools like auto_routing or import_auto_route, but does not elaborate on what 'clear' entails (e.g., removing traces, ratsnest lines) or what the scope of 'all', 'net', or 'connection' means. Still, the core purpose is clear enough.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as eda_pcb_document_auto_routing or eda_pcb_document_import_auto_route_json_file. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where this tool should not be used. The agent is left to infer when clearing routing is appropriate.

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