copy_mid_params_from_source

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and no undo, but the description adds rich detail beyond them: current overrides are cleared first, only non-static parameters copy, static switches are skipped, changes are immediate and unsaved, and the operation is refused (leaving the MID untouched) under specific conditions.

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 purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries useful information, though the paragraph is dense and the final sentence explaining the 'copied' metric is slightly redundant with the Returns spec.

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?

Despite the absence of a formal output schema, the description includes a Returns spec and covers all behavioral edges (overrides cleared, static switches skipped, refusal conditions, no undo). Nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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%, so the schema already defines both parameters. The description adds context beyond the schema by indicating that mid_object_path should match what create_material_instance_dynamic returns and that the source may be a material or material instance.

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 precise verb and resource: copying parameter values from a source into a transient MID, identified by object path. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling copy_material_instance_params, which handles saved Material Instance Constant assets.

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?

It gives an explicit alternative (copy_material_instance_params for saved MIC assets) and enumerates refusal conditions (source is the MID itself, or source has none of the MID's parameters). An agent knows exactly when to call this vs. the sibling.

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