lib_device_copy

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), it discloses the return value (the new device UUID) and honestly flags that whether the symbol/footprint are deep-copied or cross-library references is unverified - a meaningful behavioral caveat since it affects whether editing the copy touches the source. It still omits error/authorization behavior and collision handling (which lives only in the schema).

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and the return value, and no filler. The second sentence is a hedge but it carries real behavioral information rather than padding.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the one return value an agent needs (new device UUID) and covers the annotation profile. Missing only failure/permission context, which is a minor gap given the rich schema.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters (including the conditional instance_id and the collision-failing newDeviceName) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, default, or constraint information beyond that baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (copy a library device) plus the scope (from one library to another), so an agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the nearest sibling lib_symbol_copy, but the device-vs-symbol resource distinction makes the target unambiguous.

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?

The description never says when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lib_symbol_copy, nor does it state prerequisites (e.g., both libraries must exist, instance selection when multiple instances are connected). Usage is only inferable from the name and schema.

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