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

Annotations only declare this is a non-read, non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond that: settings are duplicated but existing bookings are not ('Настройки копируются, записи — нет'), which is exactly the kind of scoping an agent needs for a duplicate operation. It omits permissions or where the copy is named/stored.

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 tight sentences: the first states the operation, the second states the crucial settings-vs-records distinction and the motivating use case. Nothing is wasted and the key constraint is front-loaded.

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 2-parameter duplicate tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, what gets copied vs not, and a use case. The main remaining gap is that, absent an output schema, it never indicates what the call returns (e.g. the new scheduler's ID), which an agent might need.

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 both parameters carry their own descriptions with provenance hints (scheduler_id from get_schedulers, workspace_id from workspace://list). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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 ('Копирует расписание записи' – copies a booking schedule), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like save_scheduler or duplicate_quiz, but the copy semantics are self-evident.

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?

Provides an explicit use case: creating a similar schedule with a different duration or different hours ('удобно завести похожее расписание с другой длительностью или другими часами'). It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when NOT to use it, but the context is clear.

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