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

Annotations already declare this is a write (readOnlyHint=false) that is neither destructive nor idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: the default title behavior, the plan-limit constraint, and the exact return contents (id, title, node/edge counts, link) despite no output 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?

Three tight sentences: action and scope first, then default naming and constraint, then return values. Nothing redundant or padded.

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?

For a two-parameter mutation tool with full annotation coverage, the description is nearly complete: it covers behavior, naming default, a constraint, and return values even without an output schema. Only the explicit routing against other creation siblings 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 the description largely restates the title parameter's default verbatim from the schema. No additional syntax or edge-case meaning is added, 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 saved Wavelength flow into a new flow') plus the preserved scope ('same transcript and graph'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_flow_from_graph, create_flow_from_text, and import_* which build flows from other sources.

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?

Usage is implied — duplicate an existing flow rather than creating or importing one — and 'Plan flow limits apply' hints at a precondition. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this over create_flow_from_graph or other creation siblings, nor states what happens when limits are hit.

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