pcb_delete_primitives

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the description goes further and adds genuinely new behavioral context: there is no undo path, the whole document is snapshotted to the local backup repo beforehand, and the response carries the backup SHA for recovery. That is exactly the recovery/risk information an agent needs before a destructive call.

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?

Three tight sentences: the action first, then the irreversibility constraint, then the mitigation. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information (no undo, but a backup exists) is front-loaded.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential risk profile, the safety net, and what the response returns (backup SHA). It stops short of clarifying behavior on nonexistent IDs or multi-document/instance edge cases, but nothing critical for a correct invocation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (ids, type, document, instance_id) are already documented, including the enum for type and the instance_id auto-selection rule. The description only restates 'by type and IDs' and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb (Delete), resource (PCB primitives), and scope (one or more, by type and IDs), which cleanly separates it from read/modify siblings like pcb_modify_primitive and pcb_get_primitives_by_id. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

It discloses the key operating condition (irreversible, no undo) but never states when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as pcb_modify_primitive or the sch_delete_* siblings, nor any preconditions beyond what the schema already carries. Usage is implied by the verb rather than explicitly framed.

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