eda_lib_footprint_update_document_source

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the return type (Promise<boolean | undefined>) and its meaning ('是否更新成功'), but it does not disclose that this is a mutating operation, whether it requires specific permissions, whether changes are persisted immediately, or what failure modes exist. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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 function signature, then followed by a one-line Chinese purpose and a return-value note. No words are wasted, though the raw signature line is somewhat redundant with the schema. It is appropriately sized for the information it conveys.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutating tool with three meaningful parameters. It does not explain how to obtain the UUIDs, what documentSource should contain, whether the operation requires an open editor, or what undefined in the return value signifies. The sibling context shows related tools for searching/modifying footprints, but the description does not connect to them, leaving the agent to guess prerequisites.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameter names are already documented. The description adds the raw function signature with parameter types, which is mildly helpful, but it does not explain what values documentSource can take, how to obtain valid footprintUuid and libraryUuid, or whether the ordering in the args array matters beyond the signature. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema covers the parameter list, but the description adds limited domain meaning.

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 verb 'updateDocumentSource' and the resource (footprint), with the Chinese phrase '更新封装的文档源码' confirming the purpose. It specifies the exact fields being updated (documentSource) and lists all three parameters. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like eda_lib_symbol_update_document_source or eda_lib_footprint_modify, so it is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as eda_lib_footprint_modify or eda_sys_file_manager_set_document_source. It does not mention any preconditions (e.g., footprint must exist in the library) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate usage context from the name alone.

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