Copy Presentation

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

While annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false (not destructive), the description goes far beyond these by detailing the overwrite refusal without overwrite=True, the backup rotation into .ks4p-backups, the undoability via manage_backups restore, and the explicit guarantee that the source file is never modified. These are valuable behavioral traits not captured in the annotations.

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 description is three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides key behavioral caveats and cross-references. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is logical: purpose → usage context → behavioral details.

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 copy tool with an output schema (not shown but present), the description covers all critical operational aspects: overwrite semantics, backup behavior, undo path, and source safety. It also cross-references manage_backups, which aids an agent in chaining tools. There is no missing information an agent would need to call it correctly.

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?

The schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must carry the burden. It explicitly explains dest_path ('explicit dest_path') and overwrite ('Refuses an existing dest_path unless overwrite=True'), and implicitly refers to file_path as 'source file'. While file_path is not directly named, the meaning is inferable from the context. The description adds significant meaning for two of the three parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Copy a deck byte-for-byte'. It names the specific verb (copy) and resource (deck), and immediately differentiates from the sibling tool create_snapshot by explaining that this tool takes an explicit dest_path while create_snapshot names a DTG-stamped copy. This makes the tool's role unambiguous and distinguishes it from its closest alternative.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('e.g. to a working copy before heavy edits') and explicitly contrasts it with the alternative create_snapshot ('create_snapshot names a DTG-stamped copy for you; this tool takes an explicit dest_path'). It also explains the overwrite behavior and backup mechanism, giving the agent clear conditions for invocation and fallback options.

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