Delete a library classification by its index in EasyEDA Pro. Specify the index to remove the classification.
lib_Classification.deleteByIndex(classificationIndex: ILIB_ClassificationIndex) -> Promise 删除指定索引的分类 deprecated: since EDA v3.2; dropped EDA v3.3 returns: 操作是否成功 [已弃用]
| 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. It discloses the return type (boolean indicating success) and the deprecation schedule, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects like cascading deletions, permissions, or what happens to associated data—gaps for a delete operation.
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 concise, including the signature, purpose, deprecation, and return value in a few lines. It's front-loaded with the signature and doesn't waste words, though mixing English and Chinese may reduce clarity slightly.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description doesn't explain what a classification index is, how to obtain one, or the impact of deletion. It also doesn't provide an alternative to the deprecated tool. For a tool that might still be encountered, this is incomplete, though the deprecation reduces urgency.
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 the baseline is 3. The description adds the signature showing the parameter type (ILIB_ClassificationIndex), but it doesn't explain how to construct or obtain an index, leaving the args array ambiguous. The added signature is helpful but not sufficient to fully understand the parameter.
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 the tool deletes a classification by index via the signature and Chinese phrase '删除指定索引的分类'. It's clear about the verb (delete) and resource (classification), and the name differentiates from delete_by_uuid by parameter type, though not explicitly stated.
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?
The deprecation note ('deprecated: since EDA v3.2; dropped EDA v3.3') clearly signals this tool should not be used, but it does not recommend an alternative like delete_by_uuid. It gives an exclusion but no positive guidance on when to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.