eda_sch_primitive_wire_delete

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the operation returns a Promise<boolean> indicating deletion success, which is useful, but it does not disclose that the operation is destructive/irreversible, what happens with invalid or already-deleted primitive IDs, or whether connected wiring is affected.

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-loaded: the signature appears first, followed by a one-line Chinese summary and a return-value note. Every line carries useful information and there is no filler.

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 simple delete operation, the signature plus return semantics provide a minimally viable invocation path, especially with `windowId` documented in the schema. However, the description lacks important context for a destructive action: no warning about irreversibility, no guidance on acquiring valid primitive IDs, and no statement about document/window scope. The definition is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 descriptions for `args` and `windowId` exist, but the `args` description is only the generic 'JSON parameter array in official signature order'. The description adds real semantic value by naming the first argument `primitiveIds` and specifying its accepted types: string, ISCH_PrimitiveWire, or arrays of either. It does not explain the shape of ISCH_PrimitiveWire, but that detail is also absent from the schema.

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 pairs the verb 'delete' with the resource '导线/wire' and includes the exact API signature, making it apparent that this removes schematic wire primitives. It is distinguishable from sibling create/get/modify wire tools primarily through the tool name and the action verb, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. There are no prerequisites mentioned, no note that primitive IDs must first be obtained via a getter like eda_sch_primitive_wire_get_all_primitive_id, and no alternatives are named. The intended usage is only implied by the delete verb.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.