eda_pcb_layer_delete_physical_stacking_configuration

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

With no annotations the description must disclose behavior itself; it does state that the operation deletes a configuration and returns a boolean '删除是否成功'. However, it does not mention whether deletion is irreversible, whether the configuration can be deleted if currently in use, or any side effects on the PCB stackup.

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 compact and front-loaded with the API signature, followed by a one-line purpose, version note, and return meaning. No redundant prose, though the version remark is marginal.

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 PCB stackup operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It lacks constraints, side effects, and clarification of physicalProps, so an agent may call it without knowing whether the targeted configuration is deletable or what happens to the current board.

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 generic args/windowId schema is uninformative, but the description's signature provides parameter names, types, and optionality: configurationName: string and physicalProps?: IPCB_SubstratePhysicalProperties. It still leaves the meaning of physicalProps unexplained, but it materially improves on the schema alone.

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 names a specific action with verb and resource: 'deletePhysicalStackingConfiguration' and '删除物理叠层配置'. It clearly differentiates this from sibling layer configuration tools such as rename/save/get, so an agent can identify it as the delete operation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives, no prerequisite like enumerating configurations first, and no note about constraints such as protected/default configurations. The only meta-information is 'remarks: ADD since EDA v4.2', which is version history rather than usage guidance.

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