Delete dimension annotations from a PCB layout by specifying primitive IDs. Resolves design clutter and outdated measurements, returning success status to confirm removal.
pcb_PrimitiveDimension.delete(primitiveIds: string | IPCB_PrimitiveDimension | Array | Array) -> Promise 删除尺寸标注 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return boolean and the signature, but does not disclose side effects, error conditions, irreversibility, or any requirements like active document/window. The deletion nature is implied but not detailed.
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, combining the API signature and a one-line Chinese explanation. It is front-loaded with the action and returns info. No wasted words.
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 deletion tool with no annotations and minimal description, it lacks guidance on obtaining primitiveIds, error handling, undo behavior, or any prerequisites like active PCB document. It does not explain the return value's implications or failure modes. Incomplete for an agent to call correctly.
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 type signature for primitiveIds (string, IPCB_PrimitiveDimension, or arrays) which adds some meaning beyond the generic 'args' schema description. However, it does not explain what a primitiveId represents, how to obtain it, or the semantics of the array. Schema coverage is 100% but generic; the type info is helpful but limited.
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 the action: delete dimension annotations (尺寸标注) with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from other primitive delete tools by the 'dimension' in the name and the Chinese phrase. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, and the signature is included but the purpose is clear.
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or how to obtain primitiveIds. The description only states the action without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.