eda_lib_cbb_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 discloses that the operation returns the UUID of the new module, implying a write/mutation, but it does not mention side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or what happens if the target library already contains a similarly named module. The description is too sparse to convey the behavioral profile of a copying operation.

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 a single line of code signature plus two short Chinese lines. It is concise and front-loaded with the essential information, but it lacks narrative structure or explanatory prose. While efficient, it sacrifices clarity by not elaborating on parameters or behavior; it reads more like a code comment than a tool description.

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 tool has five parameters (two optional), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits parameter semantics, error conditions, and any guidance on classification handling. An agent would struggle to construct a correct call without additional documentation, especially for the targetClassification parameter. The return value is specified but not the full context of the operation.

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 input schema only describes the wrapper args array and windowId; individual parameter meanings come solely from the signature in the description. The description lists parameter names and types (cbbUuid, libraryUuid, targetLibraryUuid, targetClassification, newCbbName) which adds value beyond the schema, but it does not explain the role of each parameter (e.g., the difference between libraryUuid and targetLibraryUuid, or how targetClassification is used). The names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the optional classification type is undefined.

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 action: copying a reusable module (CBB) from one library to another, as shown in the signature and the Chinese phrase '复制复用模块'. It includes the key parameters (cbbUuid, libraryUuid, targetLibraryUuid) that make the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like eda_lib_cbb_create or eda_lib_cbb_modify, but the 'copy' action is self-evident.

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. It doesn't explain prerequisites (e.g., the source library must contain the CBB), whether the target library must differ from the source, or any conditions under which copying is appropriate. An agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and signature.

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