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

Annotations only state readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden of side-effect disclosure. It clearly explains that the source is untouched, nothing is sent, signature progress is not copied, payment requirements are carried over, and charges only occur when the draft is sent. These details go well beyond the annotations and prevent major misuses.

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?

Although longer than typical descriptions, every sentence earns its place by conveying operation, side effects, return value, workflow, billing behavior, signature progress, and exclusions. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids vague filler, making the length justified and useful.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by stating that the return value is draftId, not documentId. It covers the full scope of copied configuration, what is not copied, billing implications, workflow next steps, and the draft-duplication exclusion, giving an agent enough context to invoke the tool 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?

The input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful context that documentId refers to a sent document and that the output is a draft, but it does not materially deepen parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already 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?

The description states the operation explicitly: copying a sent document's configuration into a NEW DRAFT, listing exactly which aspects are copied. It also distinguishes itself from duplicate_draft by explicitly stating that drafts cannot be duplicated with this tool, and clarifies that it returns draftId rather than documentId.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use context and workflow guidance: review the copy, adjust with update_draft, then send with send_draft. It also gives a clear exclusion and alternative: 'A draft cannot be duplicated with this tool — use duplicate_draft.'

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