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

With annotations present, the description adds valuable context: account-owner-only authorization, that archived products can be copied, that the result is a separate product with its own ID, and that the call requires a Cotlet API key with app access. It also notes the operation sends nothing to anyone and needs no prior confirmation, which goes beyond what readOnlyHint/destructiveHint convey.

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-loaded with the core purpose, but the middle sentence ('runs without asking first: it sends nothing to anyone, and set_product_status archives the copy in one call') crams two unrelated ideas together and reads awkwardly, and the trailing API-key sentence is boilerplate.

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 with no output schema, the description covers authorization, scoping (archived products), and the shape of the result (a new product with its own ID). Reasonably complete, though return/error detail beyond the permission case is thin.

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%, with both product_id and name documented including defaults, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema's own 'Product ID from list_products' annotation, matching the baseline for fully-covered parameters.

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 product) and clarifies scope: it copies checkout and settings, like the UI copy button, including archived products. This distinguishes it clearly from get_product, list_products, and update_coupon siblings.

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 a concrete use case ('for a new cohort') and an actionable prerequisite (only the account owner can clone; sub-users get a permission error). It references set_product_status as a follow-up archiving step but does not explicitly name a competing alternative to choose instead.

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