Delete a footprint from an EasyEDA Pro library by providing its UUID and the library UUID. Returns a boolean indicating whether the deletion succeeded.
lib_Footprint.delete(footprintUuid: string, libraryUuid: string) -> Promise 删除封装 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 bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state a Promise<boolean> return and 'returns: 操作是否成功', which tells the agent the outcome is a success flag. But it does not warn that deletion is likely permanent, does not mention cascading effects on symbols/PCB instances, permission requirements, or failure behavior. For a destructive operation this is a significant transparency 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, front-loads the signature, and adds the Chinese purpose and return line with no fluff. However, the Chinese-only purpose may reduce clarity for non-Chinese agents, and the structure is more of a code reference than a purpose-first explanation. Still, every element earns its place.
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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits safety caveats (irreversibility), prerequisites (library must exist, user must have permission), side effects, and error semantics. The agent learns what the tool does but not enough to invoke it safely or understand edge cases.
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 describes 'args' as an ordered JSON array with empty item schema, so it provides no parameter semantics. The description compensates by giving the official signature with parameter names and types (footprintUuid: string, libraryUuid: string). This is genuinely useful beyond the schema, though the meaning of each UUID is only inferable rather than explicitly explained.
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: delete a footprint ('删除封装') from a library, using a specific verb and resource. It also conveys the return type (Promise<boolean>). However, the purpose is presented as a raw API signature plus a bare Chinese phrase, not a well-formed descriptive sentence, and it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling footprint tools beyond the implied action.
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 (e.g., modify, copy, get, search). No prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions are mentioned. The agent must infer entirely from the name and the one-line description that this is the deletion tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.