Import PCB design changes into the schematic document, updating the circuit with modifications made on the PCB layout. Returns success or failure.
sch_Document.importChanges() -> Promise
从 PCB 导入变更
returns: 导入操作是否成功，导入失败或游离原理图返回 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 behavioral disclosure burden. It does mention the return value and conditions for false (import failure or orphaned schematic), which is useful. However, it does not disclose that this is a mutation operation, what side effects occur on success, or any permission requirements. The orphaned schematic condition is a notable detail but overall disclosure is minimal.
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 concise, with the function signature, a one-line purpose, and a clear return explanation. It is front-loaded with the operation and contains no fluff. Every sentence 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 operation with only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and a key failure condition (orphaned schematic). However, it omits details like what changes are imported, whether the operation modifies the document, and any prerequisites (e.g., a valid project context). Given no annotations, it could be more complete, but it's 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% for both parameters (args and windowId) with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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: '从 PCB 导入变更' (import changes from PCB), with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling eda_pcb_document_import_changes by the 'sch' prefix in the name, but the description does not explicitly call out that distinction, so it's clear but not fully differentiating.
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, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states the operation without context on when it's appropriate, which leaves the agent without routing information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.