Delete PCB primitive components from the active EDA window by specifying component IDs. Verify whether the deletion operation succeeded.
pcb_PrimitiveComponent.delete(primitiveIds: string | IPCB_PrimitiveComponent | Array | Array) -> Promise 删除器件 returns: 删除操作是否成功
| 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?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states it deletes a component and returns a boolean, but it does not disclose side effects, irreversibility, whether it requires a selected document, error behavior, or impact on connected nets. This is a destructive operation, and the description lacks critical safety context.
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 concise and front-loaded with the method signature and Chinese summary. It includes the return type and purpose in under three lines. Minimal waste, though the bilingual content could be streamlined.
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 the absence of annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits information about windowId usage, whether the operation affects the active document, if multiple IDs are processed sequentially, and restoration possibilities. An agent has enough to guess the action but not enough to invoke it with confidence.
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 full type signature for the primary parameter 'primitiveIds', including string, IPCB_PrimitiveComponent, and arrays thereof. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only shows a generic 'args' array. However, it does not explain how to obtain a primitive ID or component object, or the difference between passing IDs versus objects.
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 ('器件' / component), and includes the method signature 'pcb_PrimitiveComponent.delete'. It clearly conveys what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling delete tools for other primitive types (arc, line, etc.) via the component resource.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other primitive delete tools or batch operations. There is no mention of prerequisites, target document selection, or conditions under which this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.