Removes specified image primitives from the PCB design. Use to delete unwanted embedded images by providing their primitive IDs.
pcb_PrimitiveImage.delete(primitiveIds: string | IPCB_PrimitiveImage | Array | Array) -> Promise 删除图像 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that it returns a boolean indicating success, but does not state that deletion is destructive, whether it is reversible, requires specific permissions, or affects other primitives. The behavior is largely implicit.
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 extremely short, containing only a function signature and a two-word translation. While concise, it lacks essential structure like front-loaded purpose or usage hints. It reads as a raw API dump rather than a curated tool description.
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 delete operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not state what happens to the primitive, whether the deletion is permanent, if there are any side effects, or what the boolean return actually means beyond 'success'. An agent needs more context to safely use 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 and windowId), so the baseline is 3. The description adds the first parameter's type union (string | IPCB_PrimitiveImage | Array<string> | Array<IPCB_PrimitiveImage>), which is more specific than the schema's generic 'args' description. However, it does not explain how to obtain or construct these identifiers, and windowId is not expanded beyond the schema.
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 '删除图像' (delete image), which clearly identifies the action and resource, but this essentially restates the tool name. It adds a function signature with parameter types, which is useful, but the core purpose is not elaborated beyond the name.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer that this deletes image primitives, but nothing distinguishes it from other primitive delete tools or explains when it should be chosen.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.