Delete specified buses from an EasyEDA schematic by providing primitive IDs, enabling removal of unwanted bus connections.
sch_PrimitiveBus.delete(primitiveIds: string | ISCH_PrimitiveBus | Array | Array) -> Promise 删除总线 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 is a destructive mutation, yet the description never states what happens to connected nets, whether the operation is reversible, or any failure conditions. The only behavior disclosed is the boolean return (success flag), which is already implied by the signature.
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 and free of padding, but it is essentially a raw TypeScript signature dump plus a one-line tautology and a returns note. It is compact rather than genuinely concise prose, and the format is not agent-oriented.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, and the tool is destructive. The description omits how to acquire primitiveIds, what the deletion impacts, and window targeting semantics. For a mutation tool with zero structured metadata, this is a significant 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the schema only describes args as a generic array, which is uninformative. The description compensates by listing the accepted types (string | ISCH_PrimitiveBus | Array<string> | Array<ISCH_PrimitiveBus>). This adds real value, though it never explains what ISCH_PrimitiveBus is or how to resolve primitive IDs, so it only partially compensates.
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 Chinese '删除总线' (delete bus) plus the signature states the verb and resource, so an agent can tell this deletes bus primitives. However, it is largely a tautology of the name eda_sch_primitive_bus_delete and does not distinguish itself from sibling delete tools (e.g., eda_sch_primitive_arc_delete, eda_sch_primitive_object_delete) beyond the resource name itself.
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, no prerequisites, and no mention that IDs should first be obtained from get_all_primitive_id calls. An agent is left to infer usage entirely from the signature and name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.