eda_lib_footprint_copy

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

With no annotations, the description does disclose the core effect (copying a footprint) and return value (new footprint UUID or undefined), which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects, permission requirements, or behavior on name conflicts or missing libraries.

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 definition is compact and front-loaded with the invocation signature followed by a short return note. The Chinese phrase '复制封装' is somewhat redundant with 'copy', but there is no significant fluff.

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 5-parameter copy operation with no annotations and no output schema, this is sparse. It omits what the classification parameter does, how to obtain source/target library UUIDs, and the consequences of omitting optional parameters.

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 lists all parameters with names, types, and optional markers in signature form, going beyond the generic 'args array' schema. The opaque ILIB_ClassificationIndex type is not elaborated, but parameter names convey their roles adequately.

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 names the operation 'lib_Footprint.copy' and includes '复制封装' (copy footprint), clearly identifying the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling footprint tools such as create/delete/search through its copy semantics.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like eda_lib_footprint_create or other library copy tools. The signature implies source and target libraries, but selection criteria and preconditions are left unstated.

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