Save the active PCB, including all unsaved editor changes, to its current file.
Explicitly save the active PCB, including unsaved changes made in the editor, to its current file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by clarifying that it saves unsaved changes and writes to the current file, which goes beyond a generic 'save' and helps the agent understand the exact persistence behavior without contradicting any annotation.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the action and its scope. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the key nuance of unsaved changes, with no wasted words.
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 zero-parameter, simple save operation with an output schema present, the description fully covers what the tool does. It specifies the target (active PCB), the inclusion of unsaved changes, and the destination (current file). No additional behavioral or error information is necessary given the simplicity and existing structured metadata.
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?
There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description correctly omits any parameter details since none exist. No further semantic enrichment is needed.
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 verb 'save' and the resource 'active PCB', and specifies that it includes unsaved changes and writes to the current file. This is a distinct operation from all sibling tools, which are read/list/export/update/move/add operations, so there is no ambiguity.
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 implies this tool is used when the agent needs to persist the current editor state, including unsaved changes. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but no sibling tool performs saving, so the context is clear enough. It lacks an explicit exclusion but provides sufficient usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.