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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds the key behavioral guarantee that the original is left unchanged, which is valuable context beyond the annotations. It also clarifies the result is a new draft, not a sent broadcast. It doesn't mention side effects like whether the draft is immediately visible or requires further steps, but for a simple copy operation this is adequate.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the non-destructive guarantee is stated in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is nearly complete. It states the action, the result (new draft), and the non-destructive nature. It could mention whether the new draft is immediately editable or requires additional setup, but that is a minor gap given the simplicity of the operation.

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%: the only parameter, broadcast_id, is described as 'The broadcast to copy'. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but none is needed given the single, self-explanatory parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Copy') and resource ('a broadcast into a new draft'), and explicitly notes the original is left unchanged. This clearly distinguishes it from related broadcast tools like create_broadcast, send_broadcast, schedule_broadcast, and rename_broadcast.

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 implies the use case: duplicating an existing broadcast to create a draft without modifying the original. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of sibling tools (create_broadcast, send_broadcast, rename_broadcast) makes the intended usage clear. A small gap: it doesn't state when to prefer this over create_broadcast.

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