Delete PCB fill primitives in EasyEDA Pro to remove unwanted copper pours or clear areas for design adjustments.
pcb_PrimitiveFill.delete(primitiveIds: string | IPCB_PrimitiveFill | Array | Array) -> Promise 删除填充 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It reveals that the operation returns a boolean success indicator, but for a destructive delete operation it omits whether deletion is irreversible, which document is affected, or how invalid primitive IDs are handled. This is a significant transparency 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 very short and to the point: a signature line, a one-line Chinese action statement, and a return-value note. Every element earns its place, though the Chinese phrase largely duplicates the tool name.
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?
The description covers the core operation, parameter types, and return type, which is sufficient for a simple delete call. Yet with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves out useful context such as which document the deletion applies to (beyond the windowId schema property) and any side effects or failure 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 description includes the function signature with the parameter name primitiveIds and its union type (string | IPCB_PrimitiveFill | Array), which adds meaning beyond the generic 'args' array in the schema. However, it does not clarify what an IPCB_PrimitiveFill object is or how to obtain primitive IDs, leaving some semantics implicit.
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 the action ('删除填充' – delete fill) and provides the exact API signature pcb_PrimitiveFill.delete, clearly identifying the resource being operated on. It is not a bare tautology because the signature adds method-level detail, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling fill tools.
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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as needing an open PCB document or selected primitives. The description simply names the operation without contextual placement among the many primitive manipulation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.