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

The annotations already declare that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, destructive operation. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the copy is priced as a plan copy, and optional nodes/edges replace the source graph in the copy rather than modifying the source. It does not fully explain the destructive hint or confirm source immutability, so it is strong but not complete.

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 description is compact and front-loaded: it first states the copy action and target, then adds the pricing and graph-override behavior. Every clause adds useful information with 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?

For a write operation with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action, source options, target name, pricing implication, and optional graph replacement. It is nearly complete, though it could more explicitly identify the UUID as the source plan and state that each call creates a new billable copy.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the target plan name and the optional nodes/edges override behavior, but it does not clarify the meaning of agent_office_plan_uuid as the source selector or describe expected formats for nodes/edges, leaving key semantics to inference from the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: it copies a ready-made flow or the merchant's own plan graph into a new plan. It clearly identifies the source options and target name, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as create_agent_office_plan_graph or edit_agent_office_plan_graph.

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 by the word 'Copies' and by the source options, suggesting this is used when duplicating an existing plan graph rather than creating one from scratch. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives compared with the many sibling plan tools.

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