Delete a reusable module from an EasyEDA Pro library by specifying its UUID and library UUID. Returns a boolean indicating whether the deletion succeeded.
lib_Cbb.delete(cbbUuid: string, libraryUuid: string) -> Promise 删除复用模块 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the return value (Promise<boolean> indicating success) and the basic delete action. It does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, whether there are cascading effects on projects using the module, permission requirements, or behavior when UUIDs are invalid. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap.
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, consisting of a signature, a one-line purpose, and a return description with no wasted text. It is appropriately brief, though it could be slightly more structured. The information is front-loaded with the function signature.
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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is not complete enough for a destructive mutation tool. It omits side effects, irreversibility, error cases, and how to obtain the required UUIDs. An agent would be under-informed about the consequences of calling this tool.
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 description provides the official function signature with named parameters cbbUuid and libraryUuid, both typed as string, which adds meaning beyond the generic 'args' array in the schema. This enables the agent to construct the argument array in the correct order. It does not explain the domain meaning of each UUID, but the parameter names and types are clear enough for basic use.
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 explicitly states 'lib_Cbb.delete' and '删除复用模块' (delete reusable module), clearly identifying the action and target resource. It distinguishes this tool from sibling CBB operations (create, copy, modify, search) by naming the delete operation. The return type and meaning (success boolean) are also provided.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as eda_lib_cbb_modify or eda_lib_cbb_create. There are no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no mention of when not to use it. The only usable hint is the function name itself, which is not explicit usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.