Delete a specified net class from the PCB design in EasyEDA Pro. Provide the net class name to remove it and get a boolean success result.
pcb_Drc.deleteNetClass(netClassName: string) -> Promise 删除网络类 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?
Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full burden. It only notes the return type (boolean) but does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, whether it cascades to nets assigned to the class, or what happens if the class does not exist. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.
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 very short and front-loaded with the signature and purpose. It wastes no words, though the Chinese phrasing is minimal. Conciseness is appropriate for a simple tool.
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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits side effects, error behavior, and any conditions required for successful deletion. An agent lacks the context to predict the outcome or handle failure cases, making it insufficient for a destructive operation.
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 description provides the parameter name and type (netClassName: string) via the signature, which the schema does not detail (args is an untyped array). It does not elaborate on the meaning or constraints of the parameter, but the name is self-explanatory. Schema coverage is low, so this partial compensation is average.
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 '删除网络类' (delete net class) and provides the method signature, making the tool's purpose explicit. It is distinct from sibling tools that create, modify, or query net classes, though it relies on the name to convey this.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_net_class or modify_net_class_name. The description does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.