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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: the default title pattern, the critical rule that the copy is always unpublished regardless of the original's state, and that it returns the copy's summary with an editorUrl. The 'always draft / unpublished' caveat is the kind of state consequence an agent can't infer from readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what gets copied, then the naming rule, then the state caveat and return value. 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?

A creation tool with an output schema already covering returns; the description still supplies the two things an agent most needs — what is duplicated and the unpublished state of the result. Nothing essential 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, and the description goes further by explaining the optional title's effect (overrides the '<title> (Copy)' default). catalogId is left to the schema, which is fine since it already points at list_catalogs.

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?

Specific verb (copy) plus resource (catalog) and an enumeration of what is carried over (pages, products, design, block library). It's clearly distinct from create_catalog, which would make an empty catalog, and from update_catalog/edit_catalog.

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?

States the intended scenarios ('for a new season or a variant'), which implies when this beats create_catalog from scratch. It does not explicitly name an alternative or say when not to use it, so not a 5.

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