Delete PCB primitive objects by specifying their IDs or object references, returning success status. Simplifies removing design elements.
pcb_PrimitiveObject.delete(primitiveIds: string | IPCB_PrimitiveObject | Array | Array) -> Promise 删除二进制内嵌对象 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. It states the return type (Promise<boolean>) but does not disclose the destructive nature, irreversibility, potential side effects on connected objects, or error behavior. This is a significant gap for a delete operation.
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 short but poorly structured: it mixes an English signature with a Chinese description in a single line. The core purpose is not front-loaded, and the Chinese phrase appears after the signature. It is acceptable but not optimally organized.
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 operation, the description lacks essential context: prerequisites (object must exist), error handling, impact on dependent elements, and any confirmation requirements. Since no output schema exists, the return value is described but edge cases are absent. This is inadequate for safe usage.
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% (both args and windowId have descriptions), but the description adds the exact signature with parameter types (string | IPCB_PrimitiveObject | arrays) and return type, which is more informative than the generic 'args' array description. This significantly aids correct invocation.
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 includes a full function signature 'pcb_PrimitiveObject.delete(...)' which clearly indicates this tool deletes primitive objects, and the Chinese phrase '删除二进制内嵌对象' (delete binary embedded object) reinforces the purpose. It distinguishes from create/modify/get siblings but does not explicitly differentiate from type-specific delete tools like eda_pcb_primitive_arc_delete.
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 other delete tools. It does not mention alternatives (e.g., type-specific deletes) or any exclusion conditions. The only implication is that it deletes generic primitive objects.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.