eda_lib_panel_library_copy

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It only reveals the return type and the fact that a new UUID is generated. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the source is left unchanged), potential errors (e.g., if the target library does not exist), or the meaning of an undefined return (e.g., failure). Minimal behavioral disclosure beyond the basic copy action.

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 very short but reads as a raw code signature rather than an explanation for an AI agent. It includes both the signature and a one-line Chinese note, which is redundant. While there is no fluff, the structure does not prioritize the most useful information (e.g., intent) and lacks narrative organization.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits critical context such as what happens if the target library already contains an item with the same name, whether the operation is reversible, any permission requirements, and how to interpret the return value when undefined. The mention of windowId in the schema is not addressed at all.

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 provides the full signature with parameter names and types (panelLibraryUuid, libraryUuid, targetLibraryUuid, targetClassification, newPanelLibraryName) and their optionality. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only has a generic args array without per-parameter documentation. However, it does not explain the meaning of each parameter (e.g., what classification represents) or examples of valid values.

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 action is 'copy' and the resource is 'panel library' (复制面板库), which clearly conveys the core purpose. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from other copy tools (e.g., eda_lib_symbol_copy), but the name and the signature make the target resource unambiguous. The addition of the return value ('目标库内新面板库的 UUID') clarifies the outcome.

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 like eda_lib_panel_library_create, modify, or search. It does not describe prerequisites (e.g., existing target library) or situations where copying is preferred over creating from scratch. No context or exclusions are provided.

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