eda_pcb_primitive_poured_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it mostly restates the delete operation and the boolean return value. It does not disclose whether the deletion is permanent, whether related pour objects are affected, or what happens when invalid primitive IDs are passed.

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: a signature line, a short Chinese action phrase, and a return-value note. There is no fluff or repeated information, and every line contributes useful information.

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 delete tool in a large family of primitive tools, the description is too thin to fully orient an agent. It omits how to choose between the pour and poured variants, how to source the primitive IDs, and any operational caveats about the active window. The parameter types and return value are present, but the surrounding context is missing.

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 method signature adds real value beyond the generic args array by naming the first parameter 'primitiveIds' and listing its accepted forms: string, IPCB_PrimitivePoured, or arrays of either. The schema only describes args as a generic JSON array, so this helps an agent construct the call. It does not explain the shape of IPCB_PrimitivePoured or the windowId role, but the core parameter is meaningfully documented.

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 that this tool deletes copper pour fill primitives via pcb_PrimitivePoured.delete, giving a specific verb and resource. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from the closely named sibling eda_pcb_primitive_pour_delete, so it stops short of full clarity.

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 about when to use this tool versus related delete tools such as eda_pcb_primitive_pour_delete, eda_pcb_primitive_region_delete, or eda_pcb_primitive_fill_delete. It also does not mention prerequisites like obtaining primitiveIds from a get_all call or selecting the correct EDA window.

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