eda_dmt_project_copy_project

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that a failed copy returns undefined, which is helpful, but it doesn't mention side effects (e.g., whether the original project is modified, if permissions are needed, or if the copy is synchronous). The description is minimal and lacks behavioral depth beyond the basic return value.

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: a function signature line and a brief Chinese summary, followed by return value explanation. It is front-loaded with the operation name and parameters. While efficient, it lacks explanatory sentences that could provide context, but it earns a 4 for being tightly packed without redundancy.

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 essential: what it does, the required parameter, and the return value (including failure case). However, it omits details about the scope of the copy (e.g., does it copy all associated schematics/boards?), potential errors beyond undefined, and any prerequisites like the source project existing. Given no output schema or annotations, it is adequate but leaves gaps an agent might need to handle.

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 lists all five parameters with their types and names (sourceProjectUuid, targetTeamUuid, targetFolderUuid, newProjectFriendlyName, newProjectName), which is essential because the input schema only provides 'args' and 'windowId' without describing individual parameters. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, making the parameter roles clear even if their exact semantics are not detailed.

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 operation: copying a project via dmt_Project.copyProject, and mentions it returns the new project UUID. The verb 'copy' and the resource 'project' are explicit, and the Chinese phrase '复制工程' reinforces this. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like create_project or move_project, though the name itself is fairly self-explanatory.

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 instead of alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or typical scenarios. The description only states the function signature and return behavior, leaving the agent to infer when copying is appropriate.

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