Delete one or more arc primitives from an EasyEDA Pro schematic. Pass arc IDs or objects to remove them and get a boolean success result.
sch_PrimitiveArc.delete(primitiveIds: string | ISCH_PrimitiveArc | Array | Array) -> Promise 删除圆弧 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 provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool deletes arcs and returns a boolean indicating success. It does not mention that deletion is permanent, what happens if some IDs are invalid, or any side effects like cascading deletion. The lack of such details is a significant gap for a destructive 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 very concise, with the signature front-loaded and a short Chinese description. It avoids unnecessary words and is easy to scan. However, it is sparse, lacking any explanatory context beyond the basics, which slightly reduces its value despite the crisp structure.
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 tool is simple but the description is missing critical context. It does not explain how to retrieve primitive IDs, whether multiple arcs can be deleted in a single call (though the type suggests yes), or any error/partial-failure behavior. The absence of usage guidelines and behavioral details makes it incomplete for an agent to safely and effectively use the 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?
The description provides the exact type signature for the primitiveIds parameter (string | ISCH_PrimitiveArc | Array<string> | Array<ISCH_PrimitiveArc>), which adds meaningful detail beyond the schema's generic 'args' array. The schema descriptions for args and windowId are generic, but the description clarifies the content and ordering of the first argument. This helps the agent construct valid calls.
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 the action (delete) and resource (arc) via '删除圆弧' and the method signature 'sch_PrimitiveArc.delete'. It is specific enough to distinguish from other primitive types, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling operations like modify or get. The verb+resource is clear, so this is above average.
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 alternatives such as eda_sch_primitive_arc_modify or how to obtain primitive IDs. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The description leaves the agent without direction on appropriate invocation scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.