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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false). The description adds real behavioral context: no re-fetch or re-upload, new ids are minted, and originals remain intact. It stops short of warning that repeated calls are not idempotent and will produce duplicate copies.

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?

Three tight sentences plus the endpoint path, with the core behavior and the return-value note front-loaded and no filler. Every sentence carries either behavior, routing, or output information.

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 describing the return value (each copy's id paired with its origin id). Combined with the routing hint and the preservation semantics, an agent has what it needs to invoke this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the 'all from one notebook' constraint. The description adds only the 'same account' constraint, which is marginal beyond what the schema and structured fields provide.

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 with precise scope: copy sources from one notebook to another with new ids, originals preserved. The description also distinguishes itself from notebook_copy_notebook by name, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly names notebook_copy_notebook as the alternative for whole-notebook copies, with the selecting condition stated. It does not, however, address the closer sibling notebook_add_sources, so the copy-vs-add boundary is left to inference.

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