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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true); the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: the copy inherits the source's design (draft published as its content) and reply/internal variants, is assigned to no one, has installation off, and carries no smart-field rules. It also discloses error semantics (404 for unknown signature, 422 for unknown folder).

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 core purpose and the copy's state are front-loaded, then the alternative and follow-up workflow, then error codes and return. It is dense and information-rich with little waste, though the single long sentence carries several clauses that could be split for readability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need only be summarized ('Returns the copy.'), which it does. Combined with the inheritance behavior, the assignment/installation state, the workflow routing, and the 404/422 errors, an agent has everything needed to call it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents id, name, context, and folder_id, making 3 the baseline. The description clarifies defaults (name falls back to '<name> (Copy)', folder defaults to the source's) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so it does not rise above baseline.

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 signature into a new one') and immediately differentiates from siblings by saying to use it 'instead of reading the design and create_signature'. An agent can distinguish it from create_signature, update_signature, and preview_signature without opening any 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?

Explicitly gives the when ('a safe copy to try a change on ... without touching the original or anyone's signature') and the alternative it replaces (reading the design + create_signature). It also routes the follow-up workflow to update_signature and preview_signature, and explains how to bring a tried change back to the original.

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