copy_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and discloses that the operation is MUTATING, uses hou.copyNodesTo, and pre-checks category and name conflicts. However, it does not specify conflict outcomes (error vs rename) or required permissions, leaving some gaps.

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 compact, with the core action front-loaded in the first clause and supporting details in short subsequent sentences. It includes extra identifiers like the tool category but remains focused and free of unnecessary elaboration.

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 4 parameters and no output schema; the description covers the main action and some behavior (mutating, pre-checks, name handling) but leaves out return format, error handling, and the role of ctx. It is adequate for basic use but not fully complete for a mutation 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?

The description adds meaning for the 'name' parameter by noting it is optional and that None defers to hou, and it implies dest_parent is the target parent. It does not explicitly describe src_path or the ctx parameter, leaving them to be inferred from parameter names alone.

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 clearly states the primary action: '复制节点到 dest_parent 下' (copy node to under dest_parent), which provides a specific verb, resource, and destination. It distinguishes from sibling move_node by explicitly using 'copy', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies use for copying nodes but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like move_node or create_node, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. It mentions pre-checks for category and name conflicts, which hints at behavior but not usage context.

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