lib_copy_component

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses focus changes (source focused for replicate, destination ends focused with new component selected), deferred save requiring app_save_all, and the NAME_EXISTS no-op behavior when overwrite is False. These are exactly the side effects an agent must know before invoking.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then structured Args/Returns sections with zero filler. It is somewhat long, but each clause (focus behavior, save deferral, overwrite/NAME_EXISTS) adds distinct value, so length is justified.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers side effects, error modes, defaults, and even enumerates the return dictionary keys (though an output schema exists). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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, and it does: every one of the five parameters is explained with defaults, accepted values (.SchLib path vs lib_ref), and semantics. The overwrite and new_name default behaviors are clarified beyond the bare schema types.

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?

States a specific verb (copy) and resource (component) and scopes it explicitly to WITHIN or BETWEEN schematic libraries. The name/title match and the precise 'replicates all pins, graphics, parameters' phrasing let an agent distinguish this from lib_copy_footprint or lib_move_components without opening the schema.

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?

Explains the branching logic clearly: dest_library omitted or equal to source_library yields a same-library duplicate, differing path yields a cross-library copy, and it points to app_save_all for persistence. It doesn't explicitly contrast against sch_replicate_component or lib_copy_footprint, so not a full 5.

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