Attempts to delete a schematic primitive attribute, but returns false because attribute primitives do not support deletion.
sch_PrimitiveAttribute.delete() -> boolean
删除属性
remarks: 属性图元不支持删除，本接口调用将不会有任何效果
returns: false
| 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?
The description fully discloses that the tool is a no-op, always returns false, and that attribute primitives do not support deletion. This goes well beyond the schema and provides the agent with clear expectations of behavior with no hidden side effects.
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 includes redundant information: the signature line duplicates the tool name, and 'returns: false' repeats the no-effect statement. The mixed Chinese/English structure is compact but could be clearer with a single concise explanatory sentence.
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 tool that does nothing, the description is complete: it states the operation, the lack of support, and the return value. No output schema is needed, and an agent can decide not to call it based on this information alone.
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 covers both parameters with descriptions ('args' and 'windowId'), and the description adds no parameter-specific information. Given the tool's no-op nature, parameter details are irrelevant, but the description does not clarify what to pass, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 resource ('attribute') and the intent (delete), but immediately clarifies that the operation is not supported and the call has no effect. This distinguishes it from functional delete tools, though the verb 'delete' could be misleading without the clarification.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool or which alternative to use instead. The 'no effect' remark implicitly warns the agent not to rely on it, but there is no direction toward a proper deletion method or any conditions for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.