yuque_web_copy_catalog_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses cookie-based auth, that the operation is server-side, that attachments are re-uploaded and file cards preserved, and that the source is non-destructively kept. It omits error/rate-limit behavior and confirmation requirements, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Dense and front-loaded with the key semantics (copy is non-destructive, attachment re-upload) before the endpoint and constraint details. The trailing '详见 references/api/web_doc_api.md' pointer is extra but not wasteful, so slightly under a 5.

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, annotation-free, output-schema-free mutation-ish tool, the description covers auth mode, endpoint, source-node provenance, and the key side effect (attachment re-upload with source retained). It would be a 5 if it said more about the result or failure modes, but nothing essential for calling it correctly is missing.

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 7 parameters; the description only reinforces the node_uuid source constraint already stated in the schema. This is the baseline 3 case where the structured data does the heavy lifting.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ('Copy a catalog node (doc or dir) to a target catalog node / target repo'), and the trailing clause 'The source node is kept; a copy is created' contrasts implicitly with the sibling yuque_web_move_catalog_node. The 'node_uuid must be from the web catalog (/api/catalog_nodes), not the v2 TOC' note also distinguishes it from the doc-level yuque_copy_doc.

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?

Usage context is implied (copying catalog nodes between repos) but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, nor any routing to the similar siblings yuque_copy_doc, yuque_web_move_catalog_node, or yuque_web_batch_move_catalog_nodes. The node_uuid source constraint is helpful but is a precondition, not selection guidance.

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