femm_copy_selected

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that offsets are cumulative ('a further' shift/rotation) and that rotation is about `about` (default origin), but it says nothing about permissions, whether the original selection is preserved or altered, or whether new entities become the active selection.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and followed by a compact worked example. No filler, though the example is dense with inline code that could be slightly tighter.

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 7-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool this is close to adequate: the geometry parameters and a canonical workflow are covered. Gaps remain around `session` and the fate of the original selection, but the essential calling information is present.

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 for the geometric core: copies, dx, dy, rotate_deg, about, and entities are all given meaning (including cumulative semantics and the default origin). The `session` parameter is left entirely unaddressed, preventing a 5.

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 (the selection), and clarifies that copies are cumulative ('each shifted by a further (dx, dy)'). This distinguishes it cleanly from femm_move_selected, femm_mirror_selected, and femm_scale_selected in the sibling list.

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?

Provides a concrete workflow: draw one slot, then femm_select(kind='group') followed by femm_copy_selected(rotate_deg=360/Q, copies=Q-1, entities='group'). This tells the agent the prerequisite (a selection / group) and the intended pattern, though it never states when *not* to use it or contrasts it with mirror/scale alternatives.

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