Delete a simulation model from a specified library by providing its model UUID and library UUID. Returns true if deletion succeeds.
lib_SimulationModel.delete(simulationModelUuid: string, libraryUuid: string) -> Promise 删除仿真模型 remarks: ADD since EDA v3.2.167 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return type (Promise<boolean>) and version availability, but it omits destructive side effects, irreversibility, permission requirements, and what happens to dependent library references when a model is deleted.
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 well-structured, with the signature, Chinese summary, remarks, and return line each contributing useful information. The only mild redundancy is the Chinese phrase restating what the method name already says.
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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, this description is thin. It tells the agent which method to invoke, but not how to locate the required UUIDs, what the deletion affects, or what errors or side effects to expect.
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 signature adds the parameter names, types, and order, which compensates for the schema's generic args array. However, it does not explain the meaning of simulationModelUuid versus libraryUuid, how to obtain them, or that both are effectively required despite the schema listing zero required parameters.
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 (删除/delete) and resource (仿真模型/simulation model), and the method signature identifies the exact API call. This distinguishes it from sibling CRUD operations like get, modify, copy, and search, though it does not explain what deleting a simulation model entails within the library.
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 such as eda_lib_simulation_model_modify or eda_lib_simulation_model_search. The only usage signal is the verb 'delete', which is implied rather than explicitly contextualized.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.