copy_paste

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'copy and paste diagram elements' and does not explain the effects of each action (e.g., cut deletes original, paste creates new instances), the role of clipboard_data, or how target_diagram_id affects operations. This is a significant gap for a tool with multiple actions and nested options.

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 concise sentence, but it essentially restates the tool name ('copy_paste' -> 'copy and paste diagram elements'), providing little added value. It is under-specified rather than efficiently informative, so it does not fully earn its place.

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 6 parameters, including nested paste_options and clipboard_data, no annotations, and no output schema. The one-line description is insufficient to understand the tool's full scope (actions, cross-diagram pasting, style copying, connection preservation). Given the complexity, the description is far too minimal to enable correct invocation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for parameters, including descriptions for action enum values, clipboard_data, paste_options, and target_diagram_id. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 '复制和粘贴图表元素' (copy and paste diagram elements), which clearly identifies the operation and resource. However, it omits mention of cut/duplicate actions supported by the schema, and does not distinguish the tool from siblings beyond the basic copy/paste function.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention cross-diagram copy capabilities, prerequisites, or situations where copy vs. cut vs. duplicate should be chosen. There is no mention of alternative tools or when not to use this tool.

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