aras_copy_part

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that revision, state, and audit data are regenerated by Aras, which is important context. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects on the original part, return values, or error behavior, leaving notable 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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action and optional BOM behavior, and the second adds the key regeneration detail. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 description is adequate for basic understanding but incomplete for a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. It lacks usage differentiation, return-value expectations, and error conditions, so an agent may still need to infer important invocation details.

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 50%, so the description must partially compensate. It adds meaning to conDistinta by explaining it as the first-level BOM, but it does not clarify nuovoNome or add format/syntax details for origine and nuovo beyond the schema.

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 tool duplicates a Part with its domain properties and optionally the first-level BOM, using the specific verb 'Duplica' and resource 'Part'. It is clear and informative, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like aras_create_part or aras_new_revision, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as aras_create_part or aras_new_revision. The phrase 'se richiesto' only indicates that copying the first-level BOM is optional, not when this tool should be preferred over others.

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