Delete a specified BOM template from the schematic manufacture data. Returns a boolean indicating whether the operation succeeded.
sch_ManufactureData.deleteBomTemplate(template: string) -> Promise 删除 BOM 模板 returns: 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. It discloses the return type (Promise<boolean>) and that it returns success status, but it doesn't mention whether deletion is permanent, whether it affects existing BOMs, or any side effects. For a destructive operation, 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: a signature line, a Chinese one-liner, and a return note. It is front-loaded with the operation and resource. Minor waste: the Chinese line duplicates the English signature's meaning, but it's short.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It doesn't explain what a BOM template is, how to identify one (template string format), whether the operation is reversible, or what failure looks like. The sibling list shows related get/upload BOM template tools, but the description doesn't connect to them.
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), but the description only documents the underlying function's 'template' parameter. The args array and windowId are not explained in the description, though the schema descriptions are present. The description adds the template parameter's meaning implicitly via the function signature, but doesn't clarify how to pass it within args.
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 a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('BOM template'), and the function signature makes the operation explicit. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_bom_templates and upload_bom_template_file, though it doesn't explicitly name them.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., template must exist), nor does it contrast with upload/get BOM template siblings. The context is implied by the name and description only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.