Copy sample files to try

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

Annotations already declare idempotent=true, destructive=false, and readOnly=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description nonetheless adds real context: 'Never overwrites' (reinforcing non-destructive behavior) and 'Returns try-it prompts', which tells the agent about side output it should act on. Slightly redundant with annotations, hence 4 rather than 5.

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 the concrete file names, and every sentence serves a purpose (what, side-effect, when, when-not). The parenthetical file inventory is slightly verbose but justified since it tells the agent exactly what assets become available.

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 an output schema present, return values need no elaboration, yet the description still flags that try-it prompts are returned and that the folder is created if missing. For a one-parameter, non-destructive copy tool, an agent has everything needed to invoke it 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 coverage is 100% for the single 'folder' parameter, and the schema already explains it is created if missing with an example path. The description only restates 'into a folder' without adding format or constraint detail, 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 and resource ('Copy sample files') and names the exact artifacts (sample-sales.numbers, sample-outline.md), so the agent knows precisely what gets produced. It also differentiates from the many creation siblings by stating 'Not for the user's own files' and positioning this as a first-try convenience.

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 an explicit when-to-use condition ('user wants to try iWork Studio but has no file handy, or asks for an example'), an explicit exclusion ('Not for the user's own files'), and even the next action ('follow one of the returned try_it prompts'). Nothing 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.