copy_landscape_region

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

Annotations already declare a non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond them: automatic resampling when source/destination rectangles differ in size, in-place copying by omitting the source name, and the return payload shape. It does not state whether existing destination terrain is overwritten or whether the operation is undoable, so it stops short of a 5.

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 action, then scope, then coordinate caveat, then sibling routing, then return shape. Every sentence earns its place and there is no 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?

With no output schema, the inline Returns block compensates fully, and the coordinate-system warning plus sibling routing make the definition complete for an agent to invoke it correctly on a 4-parameter mutation.

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%, so the baseline is 3; however the description adds real meaning by clarifying that regions are in VERTEX coordinates, not world units, and by pointing to get_landscape_info (min_x/max_x, size_x) for deriving the ranges. That is nontrivial semantic value above the bare '[minX,minY,maxX,maxY]' schema text.

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 (copy/clone) and resource (a rectangle of terrain heightmap) plus scope ('between two landscapes, or within one'). It is immediately distinguishable from terrain siblings and names the alternative tool for file-based sources.

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 explicit when-to-use ('duplicate an island or reuse sculpted relief') and when-not ('use import_landscape_heightmap when the source is a file instead'), and tells the agent where to obtain the coordinate ranges (get_landscape_info). Alternatives and preconditions are all present.

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