Duplicate Component

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows the operation is destructive. The description adds context about offset placement and optional new reference designator, but does not disclose whether the original component is preserved, how nets are affected, or other side effects. Given the annotations, this is acceptable but limited.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Duplicate', and contains no redundancy. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool has moderate complexity with a nested offset object and a count parameter. The description omits mention of count (though the schema documents it) and does not clarify behavior for multiple duplicates. With an output schema present, return values are covered, but the description could be more complete about the operation's scope.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all four parameters. The tool description reiterates offset and new reference but adds no new semantic details such as count behavior, unit defaults, or relationship between count and offset. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 uses the specific verb 'duplicate' and names the resource 'PCB component', clearly conveying the core action. It also mentions offset position and optional new reference designator. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like move_component or place_component_array, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply restates the function without mentioning use cases, exclusions, or related tools such as move_component or place_component_array.

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