Copy a project data file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral content — "Never overwrites" tells the agent the collision behavior (failure rather than mutation) and "same kind's folder" constrains where the copy lands. It does not explain what happens on a name collision or any permission requirements.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler, and the location constraint is front-loaded ahead of the non-overwrite guarantee. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 an output schema present and 100% schema coverage, the description need not explain returns. It supplies the key non-obvious facts (folder scoping, non-overwrite) for a low-complexity three-parameter tool; only collision/error semantics remain unspecified.

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 100%, so the enum and all three parameters are already documented inline. The description only reinforces the folder-selection meaning of "kind" and the destination role of "new_name"; it adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ("Copy a project file") plus the destination scope ("new name in the same kind's folder"). No sibling tool performs a copy, so the operation is immediately distinguishable from cm_read, cm_edit, cm_list, and cm_model_get.

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?

Usage context is only implied: the agent can infer this is for duplicating existing project data, but the description never states when to prefer it over alternatives or any preconditions beyond the inline "must not exist" note in the schema. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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