Delete extension user configuration data in EasyEDA Pro to reset or remove stored settings for extensions. Returns success status.
sys_Storage.deleteExtensionUserConfig(key: string) -> Promise
删除扩展用户配置
remarks: 注意：本接口仅扩展有效，在独立脚本环境内调用将始终 throw Error
returns: 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 carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the Promise<boolean> return type, explains the boolean indicates operation success, and warns that invoking in a standalone script always throws Error. This is valuable beyond the tool name, though it does not mention what happens if the key does not exist.
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, with each line serving a purpose: the API signature, the Chinese action, a critical environment remark, and the return value meaning. No filler is present, though mixing English signature with Chinese notes slightly reduces polish.
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 description covers the return type, meaning of the boolean, and a key failure mode (standalone script throws). It does not explain what 'extension user config' is, how the key parameter should be supplied in the args array, or how this differs from deleting all configs, making it only moderately complete for a simple deletion tool with no output schema.
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 description adds the signature 'key: string' which gives the parameter name and type, but offers no explanation of what the key represents or whether it is required. The input schema only describes generic wrapper arguments ('args' array and 'windowId'), so even with high schema coverage, the key parameter remains semantically under-specified.
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 a specific action 'deleteExtensionUserConfig' and translates it as '删除扩展用户配置' (delete extension user config), identifying both verb and resource. This naturally distinguishes it from sibling storage operations like get/set/clear, especially the plural 'all_user_configs' tools.
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 description provides a clear environment constraint: it is only valid for extensions and will throw Error in a standalone script environment. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as set_extension_user_config or clear_extension_all_user_configs, leaving the selection partly to the agent's inference from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.