Duplicate a component

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral detail about creating a new component with fresh GUIDs. It does not mention what happens if the target name already exists, but the annotation covers the destructive nature.

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 direct, using three sentences with no redundant or filler content. It efficiently conveys the action, the result, and the primary use case.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the operation's result and purpose. It covers the core behavior, and the dry_run parameter semantics are already described in the schema.

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 100%, with all five parameters described clearly. The description itself adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the complete schema.

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 clearly states the tool copies/duplicates a component within an Altium library file, using specific verbs and a clear resource. It distinguishes the operation from cross-library copies and renames by emphasizing 'within an Altium library file' and fresh GUIDs.

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 mentions the tool is useful for creating variants, providing some usage context. It does not explicitly distinguish when to use this tool over the similar copy_component_cross_library or rename_component, though the 'within an Altium library file' phrasing gives an implicit boundary.

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