lib_copy_footprint

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses that this is a non-destructive full copy ('no delete'), how library defaults resolve to the focused PcbLib, and the exact failure mode on name collision plus the overwrite escape hatch. It does not say whether the destination library must be loaded/open or whether the operation is undoable, which leaves some mutation risk undisclosed.

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 one-line purpose, then behavior, then Args/Returns — easy to scan. Mild redundancy: the defaults for source_library, dest_library, new_name and overwrite are stated in the prose paragraph and repeated verbatim in the Args block, which costs a few lines without adding information.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, defaults, error conditions and overwrite semantics adequately. Remaining gaps are minor: no statement about required library/document state, and the Returns block partly duplicates what the output schema already defines.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate entirely, and it documents all five parameters with defaults and meaning (source_name, new_name, source_library, dest_library, overwrite). The Args block adds resolution semantics the schema cannot express, e.g. source_library defaults to the focused PcbLib and dest_library defaults to the source.

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?

Specific verb + resource + scope: 'Copy one footprint (all pads/primitives) into a PcbLib, optionally renaming.' It explicitly positions itself relative to a sibling ('Footprint analog of lib_copy_component'), so an agent can distinguish it from lib_move_footprints, lib_rename_footprint, and lib_copy_component without opening any 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?

Gives concrete preconditions and selection logic: same-library copy requires a different new_name, and it errors if new_name already exists in dest unless overwrite is set. Defaults for source_library and dest_library are spelled out. What it lacks is an explicit 'use lib_move_footprints instead when you want to move rather than duplicate' routing statement.

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