copy_design_to_workspace

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

Annotations only declare openWorldHint, so the description must carry disclosure and it does: it states the operation is non-destructive, that the original stays put, and that the copy gets its own duplicated image file. It also explains the single-workspace read scoping that forces source_workspace. It could still note permission/agency-account requirements, but the added context is solid.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its non-destructive nature, then the parameter guidance, with no wasted sentences. The trailing '[#3090dc]' is an unexplained artifact that slightly undercuts an otherwise tight structure.

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 3-parameter copy operation with no output schema, the description covers the key behaviors (non-destructive duplication, workspace scoping, where to get the destination uuid) sufficiently to invoke correctly. Only minor gaps remain, such as return value shape or error conditions.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters, including the source_workspace condition and the list_my_workspaces pointer. The description echoes that guidance, which is helpful routing but adds little the schema does not already say, so the baseline 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 (copy) plus resource (design image) and destination (another workspace), then immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling move_design_to_workspace by clarifying it is non-destructive. An agent can tell copy from move 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?

Gives concrete routing: use list_my_workspaces to resolve the destination uuid, and pass source_workspace when the design is not in the Default workspace. It implies when to use copy over move via the non-destructive emphasis, but never names the alternative tool explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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