copy_style

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses 'deep-copy' (non-destructive), details styleId generation from new_name, and specifies the return format. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but for a copy operation, the behavioral traits are adequately transparent.

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?

The description is very concise (two short paragraphs), front-loaded with the primary action, and structured as a clear docstring with Arguments and Returns. Every sentence is essential and adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (context signals) and the description's explanation of return values, the tool is fairly complete. However, it could mention whether the copy is independent of the original or if any conflicts arise if a style with the same name exists, but overall it is sufficient for a simple copy action.

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 0%, so the description bears full responsibility for parameter meaning. It explains 'source_name_or_id' accepts name or styleId, and 'new_name' has spaces stripped for styleId. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema types.

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?

The description clearly states 'Deep-copy an existing style under a new name,' specifying the verb (deep-copy), resource (existing style), and result (new name). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'create_style' (create from scratch) and 'update_style' (modify existing).

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?

The description implies usage when you need a copy of an existing style, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_style' or 'update_style'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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