ripup_net

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior (destructiveHint=true). The description adds the crucial fact that the operation is undoable in the editor, which is beyond the annotations. It also clarifies the conditional vias behavior (unless vias=false). No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the primary action and key options. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant phrasing or filler. It is concise yet covers the essential behavior.

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?

The description covers the destructive nature (via annotations), undoability, and most parameters, but the undefined 'path' parameter is a notable gap. The existence of an output schema may help, but without seeing it, the description itself leaves the tool slightly incomplete for an agent to call correctly with all possible arguments.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description is the only source for parameter meaning. It explains 'net' (the net to delete), 'vias' (whether to delete vias), and 'layer' (optional layer restriction), but completely omits 'path', which remains undefined. This partial coverage leaves a gap for one of the four parameters.

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), the resource (tracks and optionally vias of a net), and the optional layer restriction. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_track and add_via, which are additive, and from query tools like list_nets. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 implies use when you want to remove all routing for a net, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions. There is no 'when not to use' or comparison to other deletion methods, leaving the agent to infer the context.

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