eda_dmt_schematic_copy_schematic_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the function returns a UUID or undefined on failure, which is useful, but it does not mention potential side effects such as whether the copy is saved immediately, requires an active document, or affects the undo stack. For a mutation operation, this is a gap.

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, containing only a function signature, a short Chinese phrase, and a return value note. It is front-loaded with the signature. No wasted sentences.

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 complexity of EDA tools and the lack of annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't specify what 'copy' means in terms of page context (e.g., does it copy within the same schematic or across schematics?), any requirements like needing the schematic to be open, or how the result is used. The function signature hints at an optional schematic UUID, but the semantics are not explained.

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 has 100% coverage with a description that the args array is JSON parameters in official order, and windowId is optional. The description adds the function signature with parameter names (schematicPageUuid, schematicUuid?) and return type, which clarifies the parameter order and meaning, but does not explain each parameter in detail beyond names. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema covers the structure.

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 the function name and includes a Chinese phrase meaning 'copy schematic page', so an agent can infer it copies a schematic page. However, it does not clearly specify what the operation entails (e.g., duplicates an existing page within a schematic) or what the return value represents beyond 'new page UUID'. It is somewhat tautological as it repeats the name.

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 compared to alternatives like eda_dmt_schematic_copy_schematic (which copies a whole schematic) or eda_dmt_schematic_create_schematic_page (which creates a new page). The description lacks any context on prerequisites such as needing the source page to exist or the schematic context.

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