Delete a named PCB design rule configuration. System-defined configurations cannot be removed, and the result indicates whether deletion succeeded.
pcb_Drc.deleteRuleConfiguration(configurationName: string) -> Promise 删除设计规则配置 remarks: 系统配置不允许删除 returns: 删除是否成功
| 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 must carry behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the return type (boolean), that the operation deletes a configuration, and that system configurations are not allowed to be deleted. However, it does not clarify what happens when deletion fails, whether successful deletion is irreversible, or how attempts to delete system configurations are handled.
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 front-loaded: signature, one-line purpose, an important restriction, and return type. Every line earns its place without redundant fluff.
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 simple delete operation with one meaningful parameter, the description covers the essential behavior, the key restriction, and the return value. It does not need to explain the output schema since none exists, though it could be slightly more explicit about argument array construction and error behavior.
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 provides a generic args array and windowId field. The description adds the actual signature, revealing the required `configurationName: string` parameter and its type. This is meaningful beyond the schema, though it does not elaborate on the meaning of 'configurationName' beyond what the name already implies.
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 action ('delete') on a specific resource ('design rule configuration') via the method signature and the Chinese one-liner. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling DRC tools that delete net classes, differential pairs, or other rule-related objects.
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 explicit alternatives or when-to-use guidance is given, but the delete-on-rule-configuration intent is strongly implied by the name and description. The remark that system configurations cannot be deleted provides a useful boundary, though it does not explain when to prefer this over other DRC modification tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.