Trigger a canvas update calculation to refresh PCB rendering and property panels when changes are not reflected.
pcb_Document.triggerCanvasUpdateCalculation() -> Promise 触发一次画布更新计算 remarks: 画布更新计算包括画布渲染更新、属性面板更新等
如若不理解该开关的含义，请勿调用本接口进行任何操作
ADD since EDA v4.2 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?
No annotations, so description carries the full burden. It states the effect (trigger update) and returns a boolean, but does not disclose side effects, async behavior, reversibility, or failure conditions. The warning hints that misuse is possible but does not specify consequences.
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?
Concise and structured: signature, purpose, remarks, warning, version info, and return type are all present. Some redundancy (repeating signature in prose) but overall efficient. The caution is clearly highlighted.
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 trigger tool, key context is missing: when to call it, how it relates to start/stop/get status siblings, and any prerequisites. The warning suggests caution but does not provide the necessary context for correct invocation.
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%, so the schema documents parameters. However, the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. It even shows a signature with no parameters, while the schema defines 'args' and 'windowId' without explanation of how to fill them.
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?
Description states a specific action: 'trigger a canvas update calculation' and clarifies what it includes (rendering, property panel updates). It gives the signature and return type. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like start/stop/get status, though the name 'trigger' implies a one-time operation.
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 on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The warning 'if you do not understand the meaning of this switch, do not call this interface' is a caution but not a usage directive. It lacks context on prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.