copy_entity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, which is consistent with a copy that mutates the document. The description adds value beyond that: the maximum of 500 copies, the linear-step placement rule, and a worked example. It stops short of saying which document/layer the copies land on, so it is not fully complete.

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 core behavior, then a scoped usage note, then parameters and an example. Every sentence carries information (step semantics, limit, formats) with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a simple 3-param mutation tool the description supplies purpose, limits, formats, and an example. It is only slightly short of complete: handle semantics and any document/layer side effects are unstated.

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%, so the description must carry the burden, and it largely does: it documents all three parameters, gives the displacement vector format with the optional third component ([dx, dy(, dz)]), the count constraint (≥ 1), and a concrete call example. Only 'handle' lacks any format/meaning beyond its name.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('copy an entity') and immediately adds the distinguishing semantics: each copy is offset by one displacement vector, forming a linear array. This differentiates it cleanly from siblings like move_entity (which relocates one entity) or insert_block. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

The explicit 'QUANDO USAR' section gives a concrete use case ('repeat an item at a constant step, e.g. supports every 3000') and a hard limit of 500 copies. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough to route correctly.

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