copy_component

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only states the operation's intent but does not disclose whether the original is retained (implied by 'copy' but unstated), any validation, side effects on other components, permissions needed, or error behavior. It also does not mention whether parentPath must be within the same template or what happens if the new name conflicts.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core action and the optional parameter, earning its place despite being minimal in depth.

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 annotations, no output schema, and three arguments involving tree paths, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks any explanation of return value, error conditions, recursion behavior, uniqueness requirements, or the default parentPath. An agent cannot safely call this tool without external code inspection.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains newName and parentPath but leaves sourcePath entirely implicit; '复制组件子树到新 name' implies the source but does not name the parameter. The description adds minimal value over the schema and fails to clarify path formats, defaults, or the relationship between sourcePath and parentPath.

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 a specific verb (复制/copy) and resource (组件子树/component subtree) and the key result (new name, optional new parentPath). It distinguishes from move_component by using 'copy', but it does not define what a 'component subtree' is or clarify that the source is preserved. The purpose is understandable but underspecified.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like move_component, add_component, or reorder_component. No mention of prerequisites, constraints (e.g., template context), or when not to use it. The agent must infer usage from the vague action description.

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