Remove a private message bus from the EDA system. Use this to clean up or dispose of a custom bus when it is no longer needed.
sys_MessageBus.removePrivateMessageBus() -> void 移除私有消息总线 remarks: 一般无需调用该方法，除非你知道自己在做什么
| 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The warning signals risk, but it does not state what happens to the bus, its messages, or subscribers after removal, nor whether the operation is reversible. For a destructive operation, this is a significant transparency 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-loaded with the method signature, followed by a concise warning. It avoids fluff, though the Chinese phrase largely restates the English name. It earns its place but could have used the saved space for behavioral detail.
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 an internal, potentially destructive message-bus API with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the lifecycle of a private message bus, why removal is usually unnecessary, or what consequences follow, making it hard for an agent to judge when or whether invocation is actually correct.
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 `removePrivateMessageBus()` implies the method takes no meaningful arguments, which is useful, but the description does not elaborate on `args` or `windowId`. Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline applies; the description adds little beyond what the schema already exposes.
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 identifies the action as removing a private message bus via the method signature and the Chinese phrase "移除私有消息总线". This is a specific verb+resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling bus operations like create/publish/subscribe, though it does not explain what a private message bus is.
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?
The remark "一般无需调用该方法，除非你知道自己在做什么" explicitly tells the agent this is normally not needed and should only be used with strong justification. However, it does not name alternatives, such as create_private_message_bus, or describe a concrete scenario where removal would be appropriate, leaving usage guidance partially implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.