Removes a specified font from the font list in EasyEDA Pro. Use this tool to delete unwanted fonts; it returns whether the deletion succeeded.
sys_FontManager.deleteFont(fontName: string) -> Promise 删除字体列表内的指定字体 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 carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return is a boolean indicating success, but does not reveal whether the operation is irreversible, what happens if the font does not exist, or if any permissions are needed. The destructive nature is implied by 'delete' but not explicitly addressed.
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 brief: a signature line plus a short Chinese sentence. It is front-loaded with the signature and contains no wasted words, making it efficient. It could be slightly more organized, but overall it is appropriately concise.
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?
This simple delete operation is covered in terms of action and return, but lacks usage context, prerequisites, and behavioral details like error handling. Without annotations, the description should compensate, but it does not fully. It is adequate for a minimal tool yet leaves gaps an agent might need.
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 input schema descriptions cover both args (JSON array in official order) and windowId (target EDA window), giving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond echoing the signature; it does not explain what fontName should be, e.g., whether it matches the font list display name. Baseline 3 applies since schema handles the semantics.
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 '删除字体列表内的指定字体' (delete the specified font from the font list) along with the method signature 'deleteFont(fontName: string)', giving a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_font and get_fonts_list, leaving no ambiguity about its function.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention contexts where deletion is appropriate, prerequisites like the font needing to exist, or any exclusions. An agent gets no advice on selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.