bp_copy_component

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mutation behavior (creates a new node, copies properties, marks dirty), the preservation of parent components, and the deferred dirty-marking path. It does not mention failure modes, permissions, or reversibility, but the core behavioral traits are well covered.

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 well-structured: a clear first sentence, a behavior paragraph, an Args list, a KB reference, and an example. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary but every section earns its place, and the key behavior is front-loaded.

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, no annotations, and an output schema exists. The description covers the operation's behavior, parameters, and provides an example. It lacks explicit error/edge-case handling (e.g., what happens if the component doesn't exist), but for a copy operation with this parameter set, it is largely complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains source_bp, dest_bp, component_name, and new_component_name (including the default behavior). The example clarifies the expected path format. This is strong compensation for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Copy'), a specific resource ('an SCS component from one Blueprint to another'), and details the exact behavior: creates a new component node with the same class, copies editable template properties, preserves a matching parent component, and marks the destination dirty. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_component_to_blueprint or set_component_property.

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 explains what the native route does and provides an example call, which implies when to use it (copying an existing SCS component between blueprints). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the behavior details and example give clear context for selection.

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