eda_dmt_board_copy_board

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the return value (new board name or undefined on failure) but provides no information about side effects (e.g., whether the copy is deep or shallow), permissions required, or consequences of the operation. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 extremely short (a signature and a phrase), which is concise, but it lacks structure and front-loading of key information. It mixes code and natural language without clear organization. It earns a middle score because it is brief, but not well-structured for an agent to parse efficiently.

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 tool is simple (copy a board) and the schema covers parameters, but the description omits usage guidelines and behavioral details. There is no information about where the copy is placed, how to verify success beyond the return, or any prerequisites. An agent would be uncertain about how to correctly invoke this tool in practice.

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?

The description includes the signature with sourceBoardName, but does not explain how to map it to the args array or the windowId parameter. The schema descriptions for args and windowId are generic and do not specify the content for this tool. The description adds no practical meaning beyond the raw signature, and the schema already covers the parameters at 100% coverage.

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 states '复制板子' (copy board) and includes the function signature with the parameter name and return type. This clearly identifies the tool's purpose: to copy a board. It is distinguishable from siblings like create_board and delete_board, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other board operations (create, delete, modify). No prerequisites, target audience, or conditions for use are provided. The description simply states the action without context on when it's appropriate.

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