Delete circle primitives from EasyEDA Pro schematics using their IDs or objects. Returns whether the deletion was successful.
sch_PrimitiveCircle.delete(primitiveIds: string | ISCH_PrimitiveCircle | Array | Array) -> Promise 删除圆 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, the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'delete circle' and returns a boolean; it does not mention that deletion is destructive, irreversible, or that it operates on the active schematic document. The windowId parameter is not explained in context, and no side effects or error behavior are described.
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 extremely concise: a signature line, a one-word action, and a return note. It front-loads the signature and avoids fluff, but the structure is a bit disjointed with mixed languages.
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 a simple delete operation, but the description lacks essential context: which document it targets, whether it requires an open schematic, what happens if the primitive doesn't exist, and the irreversibility of the action. The output schema is absent, so the return note is useful, but the overall context is incomplete.
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 signature specifies the exact types for primitiveIds (string, ISCH_PrimitiveCircle, or arrays), which adds meaning beyond the schema's generic 'JSON parameter array'. This helps an agent construct the args correctly, though the schema description already covers the parameters.
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 the action (delete) and the resource (circle) via the Chinese phrase '删除圆' and the method signature. It is specific to circle primitives and distinguishes from sibling delete tools by name and signature, though it does not explicitly mention 'schematic' in prose.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like arc or bus delete. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context about which document or window it applies to is provided, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.