Delete a device from an EDA library by passing its device UUID and library UUID. Get a boolean result indicating whether the deletion succeeded.
lib_Device.delete(deviceUuid: string, libraryUuid: string) -> Promise 删除器件 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 present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the operation and that it returns a Promise<boolean> indicating success, but it does not describe the destructive nature, required permissions, side effects, or behavior when the device or library does not exist. For a delete 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 and front-loaded with the call signature and return type, followed by a one-line purpose. There is no filler, though the terse style leaves no room for helpful nuance.
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 gives the essential invocation details: two parameters, their types, and a boolean return value. It is minimally viable if the caller already knows the UUIDs, but with no annotations, no output schema, no source for the identifiers, and no failure behavior, it is only barely complete.
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 exposes a generic positional 'args' array, so the description adds real value by revealing the parameter names, types, and ordering: deviceUuid and libraryUuid. However, it does not explain the meaning of these UUIDs or how an agent should obtain them.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'lib_Device.delete' and '删除器件' (delete device). It also includes the exact signature with parameter names and types, making the intended operation unmistakable and distinguishable from device create/get/modify/search siblings.
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. It does not mention related tools such as eda_lib_device_search or eda_lib_device_get for obtaining UUIDs, nor does it state that deletion is permanent or irreversible. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.