eda_dmt_pcb_copy_pcb

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well by stating that even if the PCB is associated with a reuse module, no new reuse module symbol is created, and it explicitly documents the return value semantics (new UUID or undefined on failure). It does not mention whether the copy is destructive, but that is implicitly clear. The remark and return type provide valuable behavioral context beyond a simple 'copy' statement.

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 concise and well-structured: it starts with the function signature for instant recognition, follows with the purpose in Chinese, then a behavioral remark, and finally the return value description. It avoids unnecessary fluff while packing in the essential details. The only minor issue is the mixed-language style, but that does not detract from clarity.

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 copy operation, the description covers the action, parameters, return value, and a significant behavioral nuance (reuse module handling). It does not mention any preconditions or side effects beyond the reuse module note, but for a simple copy that is acceptable. The presence of the signature and return semantics makes it adequately complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 explicitly provides the parameter names, types, and optionality (pcbUuid: string, boardName?: string), which is critical because the input schema only describes a generic 'args' array without indicating what parameters go in it. This directly adds meaning beyond the schema, and the optional flag is clearly conveyed. The schema's 100% coverage remark refers to the property structure, not the semantic content, so the description is essential.

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's purpose: '复制 PCB' (copy PCB) and provides the full function signature, making the verb and resource unambiguous. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling copy tools (e.g., copy_board, copy_panel), the PCB-specific naming and description are sufficient for an agent to identify the correct operation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like eda_dmt_board_copy_board or eda_dmt_panel_copy_panel. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The only remark is about reuse module behavior, which is a behavioral note, not usage guidance.

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