Import multilingual translations into a specified namespace on EasyEDA Pro. Returns true on success.
sys_I18n.importMultilingualNamespace(namespace: string, source: ISYS_MultilingualLanguagesData) -> boolean 导入多语言：指定命名空间 returns: 导入是否成功
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the return type (boolean) and that it imports, implying a mutation, but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, permissions, or failure behavior. This is a significant gap for an import operation.
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 concise, consisting of a signature, a brief Chinese phrase, and a return note. It is well-structured and front-loads the essential information, though it could benefit from a sentence about usage context.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks usage guidance, parameter details, error handling, and behavioral side effects. An agent would need to make significant assumptions to call this correctly, especially regarding the source data structure and what 'success' means.
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 description provides the parameter names and types (namespace: string, source: ISYS_MultilingualLanguagesData) which adds value beyond the schema's generic args array. However, it does not explain the meaning or structure of the source parameter, leaving the agent to infer the expected data shape. The schema coverage is high for the outer properties but the inner parameters are undocumented.
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 imports multilingual data for a specified namespace, with the signature showing the parameters. It is clear and specific, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling i18n tools like eda_sys_i18n_import_multilingual, relying on the name and the word 'namespace'.
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 other i18n tools. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when to choose an alternative. The description is purely functional.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.