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

Annotations already declare this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds meaningful behavior: the copy is named after the original, is not published at the original's public address, is safe to make, and can be renamed in the dashboard. No annotation contradiction.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action, then efficiently covers when to use, prerequisites, side effects, and alternatives. Every sentence contributes useful guidance with no 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?

Given a single parameter, a high-coverage schema, and an output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers use cases, prerequisite steps, post-copy behavior, safety, renaming, and the relevant alternative tool.

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 is already documented as the id from list_projects, not a name or slug. The description reinforces this but adds no genuinely new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Copy') and resource ('one of this operator's existing booths'), and clarifies it copies settings into a new booth. It also distinguishes itself from start_booth, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('when they want another booth like one they already run'), names the prerequisite list_projects call, and directs users to start_booth for building a NEW booth from a description. This is strong routing guidance.

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