Delete a specific schematic page in EasyEDA Pro by providing its UUID, returning success status.
dmt_Schematic.deleteSchematicPage(schematicPageUuid: string) -> Promise 删除原理图图页 returns: 操作是否成功
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | No | 按官方签名顺序排列的JSON参数数组 | |
| windowId | No | 目标EDA窗口ID；省略时使用当前活动窗口 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states it deletes a page and returns a boolean for success, but it does not mention irreversibility, side effects on linked objects, permissions required, or behavior when the page does not exist. The description is minimal and does not add context beyond the obvious destructive nature of deletion.
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 very concise: a function signature, a Chinese line for purpose, and a return description. It is front-loaded with the signature and is efficient, though it could be slightly more explanatory. It earns a high score for being tight and direct.
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 simple deletion tool with one parameter, the description covers the basic purpose and return type. However, it does not address edge cases such as deleting the last page, failure handling, or any constraints. Given the simplicity of the tool, it is adequate but lacks completeness in explaining potential pitfalls.
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 function signature provides the specific parameter `schematicPageUuid: string`, which adds meaning beyond the generic `args` array description in the schema. The schema only says 'JSON parameter array in official signature order' without specifying the actual parameter, so the description adds value by naming the parameter and its type.
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: 删除原理图图页 (Delete schematic page), with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like deleting a schematic or copying a page, so it loses a point for lacking sibling 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. The usage is only implied by the delete action, with no explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.