copy_proposal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it signals a write operation via the scope requirement, names a dependency (Sales module), and adds a user-confirmation safety step. It doesn't say whether the source proposal is left untouched or how failures surface, so it isn't exhaustive.

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 short sentences with zero filler, ordered as purpose, then prerequisites, then the safety directive. Each sentence earns its place and the key action 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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, module/scope prerequisites, and the confirmation step. It omits what the resulting draft inherits from the source (fields, status, line items), which would round it out, but return values need not be explained given no output schema.

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% for the single proposal_id parameter, so the schema already explains it fully. The description adds no format, sourcing, or constraint detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (duplicate) and resource (proposal) plus the outcome (a new draft), which cleanly separates it from read siblings like get_proposal/search_proposals and from actions like generate_invoice_from_proposal or create_job_from_proposal. An agent can select it without opening any 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?

Gives real operational preconditions ('Requires the Sales module and the write scope') and a workflow instruction ('Confirm with the user before calling'), which is exactly the kind of context an agent needs before a mutation. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over alternatives, so no exclusion criteria are given.

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