Delete a library classification by its UUID and receive a boolean success result.
lib_Classification.deleteByUuid(libraryUuid: string, classificationUuid: string) -> Promise 删除指定 UUID 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the responsibility. It discloses the destructive nature of deletion, the deprecation status, and that returns a boolean. However, it does not mention error handling, side effects, or prerequisites (e.g., proper UUID format). The deprecation and return type are useful but incomplete.
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 front-loaded with the method signatureaine and deprecation warning. Every sentence serves a purpose: operation, deprecation, return type. No fluff.
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?
The description adequately covers the operation for a deprecated tool. It specifies the target (classification by UUID), the return type, and the deprecation lifecycle. The absence of error handling details is acceptable given the deprecation makes usage rare (and the sibling delete_by_index is the recommended path).
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 input schema only defines an 'args' array with no per-item descriptions. The description adds the exact signature with parameter names and types: libraryUuid: string, classificationUuid: string. This meaningfully clarifies what each argument represents and their order.
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 operation: deletes a classification by UUID. It includes the method signature and explicitly distinguishes from sibling delete_by_index by specifying both libraryUuid and classificationUuid. The tool name and description align perfectly.
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 notice ('deprecated: since EDA v3.2; dropped EDA v3.3') strongly implies this tool should not be used in new codeeb. It also clarifies the context (deletion by UUID) but does not explicitly name an alternative like delete_by_index. The deprecation is sufficient guidance for an agent to avoid it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.