copy

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuinely useful behavioral detail — that facing and axis block states are rotated along with the blocks — but it never says whether the source region is preserved, what happens to blocks already occupying the destination, or what the operation overwrites.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, but the first is a dense run-on whose clause order ("a box dx, dy, dz on") obscures the offset/region relationship instead of front-loading it. Compact, yet the awkward phrasing costs comprehension.

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 12-parameter geometry mutation with zero annotation coverage and no schema descriptions, the description is too thin: the coordinate extent parameters are undefined and the phrase "within the box" leaves the target region ambiguous. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the input semantics are under-specified.

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 0% across 12 parameters, so the description must compensate and it covers only dx/dy/dz, mirror, and turns. It usefully reveals that mirror accepts "x" or "z" (the schema has no enum), but design, x1/y1/z1/x2/y2/z2 are never defined, leaving the agent to guess that they are the source box corners.

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 concrete verb and resource: copies the blocks of a box region with an offset (dx, dy, dz), optionally mirrored or rotated. Parenthetical examples ("repeat a window, a pillar, a wing") and the mirror/turn modifiers make the intent distinguishable from siblings like box or symmetrize, though the first sentence is grammatically tangled and takes effort to parse.

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?

Usage is only implied through the examples of what copying is for (windows, pillars, wings). There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus box (creates fresh geometry) or symmetrize (mirrors a whole design), and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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