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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses non-destructive collision handling ('nothing is ever overwritten', suffixing to name_1/name_2), name sanitisation rules (spaces to underscores, punctuation dropped), and the requirement to surface the returned `target` name. These are exactly the behaviors an agent could not infer from 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?

Front-loads the core action in the first sentence, then moves through guardrail, tool references, collision behavior and result reporting in a tight sequence. Every sentence carries distinct operational information; none is filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by explaining the `target` field in the result and warning that it may differ from the requested name. Prerequisites, collision semantics and the correct confirmation question are all covered, so an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 100% and the single parameter already documents that the name must match list_library output, so the description's restatement of that rule adds little. The sanitisation note is about the resulting target name rather than the input argument, leaving this at the baseline for a fully documented single-parameter tool.

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+resource+scope: 'Copy one database from the shared Azquo library into the current business', and enumerates what travels with it (reports, import templates, uploaded file types). This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings such as copy_azquo_skills, try_on_copy and create_database.

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 ('ASK THE USER FIRST ... wait for a yes'), an explicit prohibition ('never copy speculatively or as a side effect of a browse request'), and names the two sibling tools to consult instead — current_business for the target and list_library for valid names. Nothing is left to inference.

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