Save the current PCB document in EasyEDA Pro. Returns true on successful save, false if saving or uploading fails.
pcb_Document.save() -> Promise
保存文档
returns: 保存操作是否成功，保存失败、上传失败等错误均返回 false
| 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 behavioral burden. It does disclose the return type (Promise<boolean>) and the important error behavior that save/upload failures all return false. However, it does not mention persistence side effects, overwrite behavior, or any impact on the editor state.
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 three short lines with no filler: signature, one-line purpose, and return semantics. It is front-loaded with the most identifying information and every line earns its place.
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 simple save operation, the description covers the return contract and errors, but it omits context about which document is saved, how windowId affects behavior, and when this tool should be preferred over document save variants. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.
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 high (100%), and the schema already describes args as a positional array and windowId as an optional target. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, though the save() signature implies there may be no meaningful named arguments. This meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters.
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 action ('保存文档' / save document) and the target resource (pcb_Document), with the code signature 'pcb_Document.save()'. The 'pcb' prefix distinguishes it from sibling save tools like eda_sch_document_save and eda_pnl_document_save.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as eda_sch_document_save or eda_pnl_document_save. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context cues beyond the implied action of saving a PCB document.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.