Customize an existing command

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a meaningful nuance: core rule definitions (Mscrm.*) remain as ID references while non-core rule bodies are copied, and it implies a possible pinning use case. However, it omits important behavioral details for a mutation tool: whether a checkout is required (ribbon_checkout exists as a sibling), whether existing customizations in the working diff are overwritten, and what happens to the working diff state. This leaves gaps in the agent's understanding of side effects.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and purpose. The second sentence adds an important behavioral detail, and the third sentence guides the next steps. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It explains the tool's purpose, a key behavioral nuance (core vs non-core rules), and the return value ('returned XML') plus follow-up actions. However, it does not mention prerequisites like checkout or whether it overwrites existing working-diff entries, which are important for safe usage. The sibling list provides some context but does not substitute for explicit guidance.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it only contextualizes the overall operation. It mentions the returned XML but not how the parameters relate to it. Thus, no additional semantics are contributed.

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 function with a specific verb ('Copy') and resource ('an out-of-the-box command definition from the composed ribbon into the working diff'). It also names the equivalent Ribbon Workbench operation, which helps the agent map this to a known concept. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ribbon_get_command (which presumably reads without copying) and ribbon_add_button (which creates new commands).

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when an existing out-of-the-box command needs to be customized. It also gives workflow guidance by mentioning subsequent steps ('edit the returned XML with ribbon_edit_diff, or publish as-is to pin the current behavior'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternative tools such as ribbon_add_button for new commands, so it falls short of a 5.

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