Delete an existing BOM template from PCB manufacturing data. Removes outdated or unused templates to keep your template list current.
pcb_ManufactureData.deleteBomTemplate(template: string) -> Promise 删除 BOM 模板 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 discloses the return type (Promise<boolean>) and that it deletes a template, but does not state whether deletion is permanent, whether it affects other documents, or any error conditions. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap.
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 includes the essential signature and return type. The Chinese text adds minimal redundancy. It is appropriately sized, though the return type line could be considered redundant with the signature.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about permanence, error handling, and the meaning of the boolean return beyond 'success'. An agent cannot fully assess the consequences of calling this tool.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% for the two parameters (args array and windowId), but the description only mentions the template string in the signature. It adds no detail about how the template parameter should be formatted or how windowId relates to the operation. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already documents the 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 ('delete') and resource ('BOM template'), and the function signature confirms the operation. It is distinguishable from siblings like upload_bom_template_file and get_bom_templates, though it doesn't explicitly name them.
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, no prerequisites (e.g., template must exist), and no mention of which window/context applies. The description is purely operational.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.