Save the active schematic document to prevent data loss, with a boolean result indicating whether the save succeeded.
sch_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?
The description discloses that the tool returns a boolean and that errors (save failure, upload failure) result in false. This is useful behavioral info. However, since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden; it does not mention side effects, required state (e.g., open document), or whether it is asynchronous beyond the Promise signature.
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, front-loaded with the method signature and then the return behavior. No fluff or redundancy; 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?
The description is incomplete for effective use. It lacks an explanation of what arguments to pass in the 'args' array, does not clarify the role of 'windowId' (though the schema covers it), and does not mention prerequisites like having a schematic document open. With no output schema, the agent only knows the return type, leaving significant gaps.
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?
The main description does not mention parameters at all. The schema provides descriptions for 'args' and 'windowId', but 'args' is described as a JSON array in official signature order with no specific items or types, leaving it essentially undocumented. The description does not compensate for this vagueness, so the agent lacks essential parameter details.
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 '保存文档' (save document) which clearly indicates the action and resource. However, it does not specify 'schematic' or differentiate from sibling save tools like eda_pcb_document_save or eda_pnl_document_save. The tool name hints at schematic, but the description alone is generic.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when to choose this over eda_pcb_document_save or other save-related tools, nor does it specify any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.