Updates a library symbol's document source in EasyEDA Pro. Provide the symbol UUID, library UUID, and new source string to modify the symbol's underlying document data.
lib_Symbol.updateDocumentSource(symbolUuid: string, libraryUuid: string, documentSource: string) -> Promise<boolean | undefined> 更新符号的文档源码 returns: 是否更新成功
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does state the return type (Promise<boolean | undefined>) and that it updates a document source, but it doesn't disclose side effects, permissions needed, whether the library must be open, or what the boolean return means beyond '是否更新成功' (whether update succeeded). It doesn't describe error behavior.
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 extremely short, which is good, but it packs a function signature in English and a minimal Chinese statement. The return value is disclosed. It is front-loaded with the signature, but the meaning of documentSource and effect of the operation are left undescribed, so brevity cuts into usefulness.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and only a minimal description, the tool lacks important context: the format of documentSource, whether the symbol must be in a specific library, side effects on the symbol, and what undefined return means. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% (args array described as JSON parameters array in official signature order), and the description includes the method signature with parameter names and types (symbolUuid: string, libraryUuid: string, documentSource: string). However, there is no explanation of what documentSource is or what format it should take (e.g., URL, file path, JSON), so the agent cannot determine valid values.
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 verb (update) and resource (symbol's document source), and identifies the method signature lib_Symbol.updateDocumentSource with parameters. It distinguishes itself from the similar sibling eda_lib_footprint_update_document_source by being symbol-specific, though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like eda_lib_footprint_update_document_source or eda_sys_file_manager_set_document_source. The context implies it's for updating document sources of symbols in a library, but there are no explicit exclusions or alternate tool routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.