eda_dmt_schematic_copy_schematic

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the return contract (new schematic UUID, or undefined on failure) and a non-obvious side effect where copying a schematic linked to a reuse module also creates a matching reuse-module symbol. It does not discuss permissions or reversibility, but copy semantics imply the source remains intact.

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 front-loaded with the function signature, followed by labeled 'remarks' and 'returns' sections. The Chinese one-liner is mildly redundant with the signature, but there is no wasted prose and the structure aids parsing.

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 with a side effect and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value and the reuse-module behavior. It is incomplete on what boardName means, where the copy is created, prerequisites such as source schematic existence, and failure conditions beyond returning undefined.

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 schema only describes the generic args array and windowId, so the signature adds useful parameter names, types, and optionality (schematicUuid: string, boardName?: string). However, the meaning of boardName is not explained, and the positional args array mapping is left implicit. This meets the high-coverage baseline but does not exceed it.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'copySchematic' / '复制原理图' (copy schematic), with a concrete function signature. It is distinguishable from the sibling copy_schematic_page tool by resource scope, though it does not explicitly call out that distinction.

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 alternatives such as eda_dmt_schematic_create_schematic, eda_dmt_schematic_copy_schematic_page, or the other copy variants. The intended use case must be inferred from the tool name and signature rather than stated.

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