copy_actors

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

With annotations covering the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description adds substantial context beyond them: the side effect that naming actors REPLACES the current selection, that matching is by INTERNAL name only, and that the returned success flag is hardcoded and must be verified via paste_actors' pasted_count. The selection-overwrite and unreliable-success disclosures are exactly the traits an agent needs before calling a destructive mutation.

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-loads purpose, then the alternative, then the warning, then the required-arg rule, then returns. Dense but every clause carries information; the em-dash parentheticals make the first sentence slightly heavy, which keeps it from a 5.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers everything relevant: the resulting clipboard state, the side effects, the either/or parameter requirement, the string-matching gotcha, and a return-value shape with a caveat about validating it. Nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.

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% and both params are self-documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a genuine constraint not present in the schema (both params are optional there): 'One of actor_names or copy_selected=true is required', plus flagging that matching is by internal name. That is real value beyond the schema, but it doesn't add per-parameter format detail.

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+resource+mechanism ('put editor-world actors on the editor CLIPBOARD'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from both siblings it could be confused with: paste_actors (the consumer) and duplicate_actor (one actor, in place). An agent can select it without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use rule ('the way to clone a group while keeping their relative layout, which duplicate_actor ... does not do') and names the follow-up tool paste_actors. It also states the invocation precondition ('One of actor_names or copy_selected=true is required'), leaving nothing to inference.

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