eda_lib_symbol_delete

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only states 'delete symbol' and that the return Promise<boolean> indicates success. It does not warn that deletion is irreversible, clarify permissions needed, or mention effects on open editors or dependent projects. The destructive nature is implied by the verb, but without annotation support, the disclosure is inadequate.

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, containing only a signature line, a Chinese purpose line, and a return-value line. No filler or marketing fluff. It is appropriately small for a simple delete operation, though the formatting is slightly choppy and mixes languages.

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, the description covers the basic what, parameters, and return type, making it callable. However, it leaves out when to use it, prerequisites, side effects, and error behavior—significant gaps for a deletion tool. It is a minimally viable description, no more.

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 describes 'args' as a JSON array in official signature order with no item typing, so the description adds real value by exposing the actual signature: symbolUuid: string, libraryUuid: string. This gives the agent the parameter order and types. The schema descriptions for windowId are sufficient on their own, and the description's parameter info compensates for the schema's generic array.

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 the action explicitly: 'lib_Symbol.delete' and '删除符号' (delete symbol), providing a specific verb and resource. It is not a tautology; it restates the tool's purpose in both English and Chinese. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling symbol operations beyond the verb itself, so it stops short of a 5.

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, what prerequisites exist (e.g., owning the library, symbol not in use), or when to prefer alternatives like eda_lib_symbol_modify or eda_lib_symbol_get. The description is purely a signature and one-line purpose, so an agent receives no routing context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.