Remove PCB pads from an EasyEDA Pro design by targeting their primitive IDs. Returns a boolean indicating whether the deletion succeeded.
pcb_PrimitivePad.delete(primitiveIds: string | IPCB_PrimitivePad | Array | Array) -> Promise 删除焊盘 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 states the operation and the return type (Promise<boolean>), but does not mention side effects, permanence, required document state, or error behavior. For a destructive mutation tool, this is a significant 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 compact and includes the signature, a short Chinese phrase, and a return note. It has no redundant sentences, though the mixed English/Chinese structure is a bit disjointed. Front-loading the signature is reasonable for a tool mirroring an API.
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 simple delete tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description gives the signature and return type, which is adequate. However, it lacks guidance on how to obtain primitive IDs, whether deletion is undoable, and what happens with invalid IDs. Given zero annotations, this is a moderate gap.
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 schema only describes 'args' as a generic JSON parameter array. The description adds real value by specifying the actual parameter name 'primitiveIds' and its allowed types (string, IPCB_PrimitivePad, arrays). This helps the agent construct the args array correctly, going beyond the schema's 100% generic coverage.
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 '删除焊盘' (delete pad) and provides the function signature for pcb_PrimitivePad.delete, which gives a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from sibling delete tools like eda_pcb_primitive_line_delete by the explicit 'pad' resource, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no conditions for selecting it. The signature and return note are purely descriptive; an agent gets no explicit context about when to invoke this delete operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.