document_save_to_file

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

Annotations only give a coarse safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds substantial behavior the agent could not otherwise know: schematic sources are run through the schema validator in warn mode, the response carries a validation report, unknown tags are logged to ~/.easyeda-schema-discovery.jsonl, and mismatches are framed as missing schema coverage rather than bad data. That is real disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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?

Well front-loaded with the core action first, then format, then workflow guidance. It is on the long side and a notable portion (backup SHAs, validate modes, Zod validation) describes the upload path rather than this save tool, which blurs focus, but most of the text is decision-relevant.

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 tool with no output schema, the description does explain what comes back (the document source plus a validation report for schematics). It is nearly complete for invocation; the only gap is that details about upload-side backups and validate modes belong to sibling tools and slightly dilute what is needed specifically to call this one.

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 filePath, document and instance_id are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description clarifies what the file at filePath will contain (EasyEDA internal newline-delimited JSON, or ZIP for .epro), but adds nothing about the document UUID or instance_id parameters themselves.

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 code of the active document to a local file, plus the exact serialization format (newline-delimited JSON arrays). It also explicitly positions itself against document_load_from_file as the reverse operation, so an agent can distinguish it from 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?

The FAST-BATCH WORKFLOW paragraph gives an explicit when-to-use rule: for many changes, export/edit/re-upload beats many small per-primitive MCP calls, and it names the alternative tools (document_save_to_file/project_export_file vs document_load_from_file/project_import_file). It also states default behavior for the related upload path (validate='strict') and points to document_validate for standalone checks.

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