Copy a component to another library

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

The annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral details: embedded 3D models are copied along, external STEP references are dropped unless preserve_external_paths is true, and it explains why (path may not resolve). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 moderately long but well-organized: purpose, constraints, behavioral details, and use case are each addressed. No redundant fluff, and the key distinctions are front-loaded.

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 tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context to understand the tool's scope, constraints, and side effects. It does not cover error scenarios or edge cases, but that is not necessarily required for successful invocation.

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%, so all parameters already have descriptions. The description repeats some of this (e.g., external path removal) but does not add substantial new meaning beyond what the schema provides, hence a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the action (copy a component) and the resource (from one Altium library to another). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool copy_component by specifying cross-library vs. within-library duplication, and mentions the use case of consolidating libraries or sharing projects.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative tool (copy_component) for duplicating within a library, and provides constraints (same type, different files). It also gives context on when to use this tool, making the selection among siblings unambiguous.

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