Delete a specific panel library from your JLC EDA project by providing its UUID and parent library UUID, returning whether the deletion succeeded.
lib_PanelLibrary.delete(panelLibraryUuid: string, libraryUuid: string) -> Promise 删除面板库 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, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does communicate that the operation returns a Promise<boolean> and that the return value indicates success. However, it does not mention irreversibility, permissions, side effects, or behavior when the library does not exist.
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 short and front-loaded with the essential signature. The Chinese '删除面板库' line is somewhat redundant with the method name, but the overall length is appropriate and the return-value line adds value.
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 delete operation with two parameters, the description covers the core behavior and return value. However, it omits practical context such as how to obtain the UUIDs, whether the deletion cascades, or any preconditions like ensuring the library is not in use.
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's `args` array is opaque, but the description compensates by providing the exact signature with two named string parameters, `panelLibraryUuid` and `libraryUuid`, in order. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the generic schema description.
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 '删除面板库' (delete panel library) and includes the precise method signature `lib_PanelLibrary.delete(panelLibraryUuid, libraryUuid)`. The verb and resource are specific, and the resource 'panel library' distinguishes it from sibling tools like `eda_dmt_panel_delete_panel`.
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, nor any mention of related search/get tools for obtaining UUIDs. The description simply states what it does without contextual selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.