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

Annotations only supply openWorldHint=true, so the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the resulting state (unsynced DRAFT, no store mapping, fresh variants), confirms non-destructiveness, and states the source-workspace scoping precondition. This is exactly the side-effect context an agent needs before a cross-workspace copy.

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?

Three efficient sentences, front-loaded with the action and its key property (non-destructive) before the prerequisite lookups. Docked one point for the trailing '[#d046a8]' artifact, which is noise that does not earn its place.

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?

With no output schema and minimal annotations, the description adequately covers the outcome (new draft product in the destination workspace) and the preconditions. It stops short of saying what the call returns (e.g., the new product uuid), which an agent may want, but nothing essential for correct invocation 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% and all three parameters are documented in the schema, including the source_workspace omission rule and the list_my_workspaces lookup for destination_workspace. The description restates the same guidance in prose without adding new syntax, formats, or constraints, so the 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 product into another workspace'), scopes it to agency accounts, and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling move_product_to_workspace by declaring the operation non-destructive with the original untouched. An agent can tell it apart from move/copy siblings without opening a schema.

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 concrete routing help: use list_my_workspaces to obtain the destination uuid, and pass source_workspace whenever the product is not in the Default workspace. It does not, however, explicitly state when to prefer move_product_to_workspace or copy_design_to_workspace over this tool, so the exclusion side of the guidance is missing.

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