eda_lib_simulation_model_copy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only provides a version note ('ADD since EDA v3.2.167') and the return type (UUID), but does not state whether the original model is preserved, what side effects occur, or any required permissions. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like 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 signature line followed by sparse remarks and return info. It is concise but poorly structured, mixing English and Chinese without clear sections. The key information is front-loaded, but the mixed-language presentation and lack of formatting reduce clarity.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the copy entails (e.g., whether the original remains unchanged), how failures are reported, or any preconditions such as the existence of the source and target libraries. An agent would need to infer these from the tool name and signature.

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's signature lists parameter names and types (simulationModelUuid, libraryUuid, targetLibraryUuid, targetClassification, newSimulationModelName), which the generic schema does not provide. However, it does not explain the meaning or expected format of these parameters, especially targetClassification, leaving the agent to guess their semantics.

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 indicates a copy operation on a simulation model through the function signature and the Chinese phrase '复制仿真模型' (copy simulation model). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create, delete, modify, and search by naming the copy action explicitly, though it does not elaborate on the precise source-to-target transfer semantics beyond the signature.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create, modify, or other library copy operations. The description does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or preferred scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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