pvsyst_clone_component

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real constraint beyond structured data — 'only verified scalar fields are editable' — which tells the agent edits are restricted. It omits whether the source template is mutated, whether a duplicate new_name errors out, which library the clone lands in, and whether the operation is reversible.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key constraint, then the verification step. No filler, though the required-field sentence is slightly ambiguous in its naming.

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?

A five-parameter mutating tool with a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema needs more than this. The description never says what is returned (the new component identifier? the cloned field set?) nor explains source_library selection, which is the main behavioral unknown for a clone operation.

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 0% across five parameters, including a nested 'updates' object, so the description must compensate. It hints at edit scope ('verified scalar fields') and required naming fields, but the terms 'Manufacturer' and 'Model' do not map to any actual parameter name (component_type, source_name, new_name, updates, source_library), and the source_library default of 'workspace' is never explained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new text component from a complete existing template'), which makes it distinguishable from pvsyst_update_component and pvsyst_build_sourced_component. However, it never addresses the near-identical sibling pvsyst_copy_component, so an agent must infer the distinction from 'template' alone.

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 gives a clear post-creation verification workflow ('Run a simulation with a variant referencing the new component to verify it'), which is useful implied guidance. But it provides no when-to-use/when-not criteria versus pvsyst_copy_component, pvsyst_create_component, or pvsyst_clone_subarray, leaving the selection decision to inference.

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