copy_model

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it enumerates excluded artifacts (binaries, results, backups, design configurations, sa folders) and states the failure mode when `name` exists. It omits permissions, side effects on the source, and any rate/limits, but the mutation semantics are reasonably disclosed.

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 action is front-loaded and packed into a single tight sentence with a scoping parenthetical; nothing is wasted, though the nested exclusion list slightly buries the destination and failure clause.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description must cover behavior and returns. It covers what gets copied and the failure condition, but never states what the tool returns (new path/name) or explains source_group, leaving gaps for a 3-parameter tool.

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 compensate. It explains `name` (the destination name) and implies `source`, but `source_group` (default 'examples') is never mentioned, leaving a required-understanding parameter undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb+resource (copy a model folder) and adds precise scope detail about what is and isn't copied, plus the destination and name. It implicitly distinguishes itself from create_model ('copy ... so it can be edited') but never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

'so it can be edited' implies the intent context, and 'Fails if `name` exists' hints at a precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., versus create_model) or when-not to use it.

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