eda_lib_3_dmodel_copy

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 states the return value (new model UUID) but doesn't disclose side effects, whether the copy is deep, whether it overwrites existing models, permission requirements, or failure behavior. For a mutation operation, this is a significant 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 compact and front-loads the signature, but it mixes English signature with Chinese summary ('复制 3D 模型'), which may be less accessible. The return type is stated. It's not overly verbose, but the structure is a bit disjointed.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the meaning of targetClassification, whether the copy is recursive, what happens to the original, or error conditions. An agent would struggle to know if it has the right parameters and what to expect.

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 embeds the full function signature with parameter names and types, which adds meaning beyond the generic 'args' array in the schema. However, it doesn't explain the semantics of each parameter (e.g., what targetClassification means, what newModelName is used for). Schema coverage is 100% but the schema only says 'JSON parameter array', so the signature helps but doesn't fully compensate.

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 ('copy') and resource ('3D model'), and includes the full function signature with parameter names and return type. It distinguishes from siblings like eda_lib_3_dmodel_create/delete/get/modify/search by indicating this is a copy operation. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling copy tools (e.g., eda_lib_symbol_copy, eda_lib_cbb_copy), though the resource is clear.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., source model must exist, target library must exist), nor does it explain when copying is appropriate versus creating a new model. The description is purely a signature and a one-line Chinese summary.

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