yuque_copy_doc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that the agent must clean the body beforehand and that source_url/source_title get appended as a footer link, plus points to extended_api.md for details. It says nothing about auth requirements, duplication behavior, or failure modes for a mutation tool.

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 compact sentences that front-load the operation and the workflow. The trailing '详见 references/api/extended_api.md' is a slightly dangling pointer to external docs, but it costs little space.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the happy-path workflow but omits what the tool returns, whether it creates a new doc or overwrites, and how target_book_id namespaces are resolved. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 the schema already documents all seven parameters including source_url and source_title. The description only echoes the required set (title/body/format/paths) and adds no syntax or format guidance beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 single document to another repo'), which clearly separates it from create_doc and copy_repo in spirit. It does not explicitly name the sibling it competes with (e.g., yuque_create_doc), so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition workflow: fetch the source via yuque_get_doc, clean the content, then call this tool with title/body/format/paths. That is real when-to-use context. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or pointing to create_doc/import alternatives.

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