document_save_to_file

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, but the description adds real context the annotations cannot: the validator runs in warn mode, a validation report is in the returned JSON, unknown tags are logged to ~/.easyeda-schema-discovery.jsonl, and a mismatch means missing schema coverage rather than corrupt data. It also discloses the exact on-disk format ({header}||{body} per record on EasyEDA Pro 3) and that the src/lib editing library cannot read it.

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 core behavior is front-loaded and clearly stated, but a large share of the text is a fast-batch workflow plus upload-side details (backup SHA, validate='off'|'warn'|'strict' defaults) that belong to sibling tools rather than this one. Useful routing context, but it dilutes a save-to-disk definition.

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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent that a validation report comes back, and it covers format, target switching, and reversal via document_load_from_file. The shape of the success response (e.g., what fields besides the validation report) is left implicit, which is a minor gap for a 3-parameter save tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both required parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces behavior the schema cannot express—that setting document auto-switches the active document before executing—but adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: save the source of the currently active document to a local file, then clarifies it fetches from EasyEDA and writes to disk. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from project_export_file and points to document_load_from_file for the reverse direction, so an agent can place it among siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit routing: use project_export_file for library edits, use document_load_from_file to push a modified file back, and use export/edit/re-upload instead of many per-primitive MCP calls for batch work. It also names concrete alternatives (project_export_file / project_import_file) and the conditions that select them.

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