duplicate_sheet

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructiveHint=true, but the description adds little beyond 'copying the child file with new UUIDs.' It does not disclose what is destroyed (e.g., existing files overwritten), whether the parent schematic is modified, or what happens if the target file already exists. The description could mislead an agent into thinking the operation is purely additive.

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 the Args list is directly informative with no filler or repetition. Every line adds value.

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 covers the basic operation and parameters, but for a destructive hierarchical operation it lacks important context: what files are affected, whether the new sheet is linked to the parent, and any preconditions. Although an output schema exists, the behavioral side-effects and prerequisites remain under-specified.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter. It clarifies optionality (schematic_path), purpose (project_path for hierarchy metadata), and default behavior (new_file_name auto-generated) in a concise manner, making each parameter meaningful beyond the schema's bare titles.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Duplicate a hierarchical sheet, copying the child file with new UUIDs.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like add_hierarchical_sheet (create new) or remove_hierarchical_sheet (delete), making the purpose obvious.

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 implies usage through its action ('duplicate') and parameters, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It lacks guidance such as 'instead of add_hierarchical_sheet' or 'only when needing a copy with new UUIDs.'

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