Delete schematic pin primitives by ID, removing them from the active design to clean up your circuit.
sch_PrimitivePin.delete(primitiveIds: string | ISCH_PrimitivePin | Array | Array) -> Promise 删除引脚 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. It discloses the return type (Promise<boolean>, success of deletion), but does not mention that deletion is likely irreversible, what happens to connected schematic nets/wires, or whether object IDs vs object instances behave differently. For a destructive mutation, 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 and front-loads the full API signature before the brief Chinese summary. Every element earns its place, though the prose is minimal to the point of terseness.
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 delete tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits usage context, preconditions, effects beyond the deletion, and any guidance on valid inputs. An agent would have to infer most operational details from the tool name and sibling tools.
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 only describes a generic 'args' array and windowId, so the description's official signature adds real value by naming the parameter (primitiveIds) and its accepted types. However, it does not explain the structure of ISCH_PrimitivePin, whether object instances vs IDs are preferred, or how to obtain valid pin IDs, leaving meaningful ambiguity.
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 operation: '删除引脚' (delete pins) on sch_PrimitivePin, and the signature identifies the resource precisely. It is distinct from sibling tools like eda_sch_primitive_pin_create, eda_sch_primitive_pin_modify, and eda_sch_primitive_pin_get.
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 this tool should be used versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., obtaining pin IDs first via get_all_primitive_id), and no exclusions. The description only states what the tool does, not when it is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.