eda_dmt_schematic_delete_schematic

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose important side effects: if the schematic is associated with a reuse module, deletion also deletes the associated PCB and reuse module symbol, and skips if the symbol cannot be deleted. It also states the return type (Promise<boolean>) and success semantics, giving agents a clear picture of destructive behavior beyond the bare 'delete' verb.

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 well-structured: signature, one-line purpose, labeled remarks, and labeled return semantics. Every line adds information without repetition or fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 operation with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value, the parameter name/type, and the key side effect (cascade deletion). It omits prerequisites or error conditions, but the essential calling context is present and no annotation gaps need compensating.

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 schema only documents a generic 'args' array and windowId, so the actual parameter 'schematicUuid: string' is only revealed in the description's signature line. This adds meaning the schema does not provide, though it does not explain how to obtain a valid schematic UUID or what values are acceptable beyond the name.

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 states '删除原理图' (delete schematic) with a clear verb and resource, and the API signature 'dmt_Schematic.deleteSchematic' reinforces the operation. It is clearly distinct from sibling 'eda_dmt_schematic_delete_schematic_page' by naming the schematic itself, but it does not explicitly call out that distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as delete_schematic_page or other delete operations. The description gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or context about selecting this tool over siblings.

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