Delete Circuits component

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

Annotations carry destructiveHint=true and readOnly=false; description adds the important side-effect that attached wires are also removed. This isvaluable beyond annotations and helps agent predict consequences.

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?

Compact and front-loaded with the action; the final sentence adds a key behavioral note. The Args list duplicates the schema but is short anddoesn't create excessive noise.

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?

Sufficient for a destructive operation: identifies irget, scope, and wire side-effect. No output schema exists, but description mentions response_format which implies a response is produced; no major gaps for calling correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and parameters already have descriptions. Description repeats argument names but adds no material meaning beyond 'Id from tinkercad_get_circuit' and response_format enum.

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?

Purpose clear: verb 'delete', resource 'component', scope 'open circuit' distinguishes from sibling delete_wire. 'Select a component and delete it" is specific and actionable.

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?

Implied usage: use when you want to remove a component and its attached wires. No explicit alternatives or when-not conditions, ut component-vs-wire distinction is inferrable from siblings.

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