eda_pcb_drc_delete_differential_pair

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states the operation and return type, but does not disclose that deletion is irreversible, whether it may fail if the pair is in use, or any other side effects. The destructive nature is implied but not explicitly disclosed.

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 very brief—a signature line and a one-line Chinese description plus return type. It is concise and immediately scannable, though the mixture of English signature and Chinese description could reduce clarity for non-Chinese readers.

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 that this is a destructive delete operation within DRC configuration accordion, with no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. An agent lacks information about error handling, whether deletion is permanent, preconditions, and how the boolean result maps to outcomes. The minimal info may be sufficient for a trivial helper, but not for a delete operation.

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 input schema covers both wrapper parameters (args, windowId) with generic descriptionsret, so schema coverage is 100% but for generic containers. The description adds the actual parameter name and type (differentialPairName: string) via the signature, which provides some meaning beyond the raw schema, though it does not explain required format or how to locate the pair.

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 clearly states the action: delete a differential pair, via both the function signature 'deleteDifferentialPair' and the Chinese '删除差分对'. It is unambiguous as to the resource and operation, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like delete_net_class, the specific resource is evident.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g., the differential pair must exist, or that this is part of DRC setup). It only shows a function signature and return type, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name.

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