eda_pnl_document_save

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the return type (Promise<boolean>) and that false indicates save/upload failures, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects, whether saving is local or cloud, or any permission requirements.

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 brief and to the point, with the method signature front-loaded. It contains no unnecessary fluff, though it mixes Chinese and English, which is acceptable but slightly less structured.

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?

The description provides the return semantics and identifies the save operation, but lacks context on what 'pnl' refers to, whether a document must be open, or any potential side effects. For a simple save tool, this is minimal but not severely lacking.

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%, with both parameters having descriptions ('args' as a JSON array in official signature order, 'windowId' as optional target window). The description adds no additional parameter information, so it relies on the schema, which is adequate.

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 the tool saves a document via pnl_Document.save(), making the verb and resource clear. It is differentiated from sibling save tools (eda_pcb_document_save, eda_sch_document_save) by the 'pnl' prefix, though it doesn't explain what 'pnl' stands for, leaving slight ambiguity about document type.

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 versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent is not told which document contexts warrant this save operation versus the PCB or schematic save tools.

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