cics_newcopy

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write, so the bar is lower. The description still adds non-obvious context: that the write is gated (needs approval), and that it requires CMCI actions support on CICS TS 5.6+, which an agent cannot infer from the schema. It does not say what happens to in-flight tasks during the phase-in, which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence carrying the action, its semantics, the mechanism, and the prerequisite, with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, and while parameters and safety hints are covered, the description leaves the 'gated write' mechanic unresolved: it never says whether the agent must first obtain approval (e.g., via approve_write) or what a successful NEWCOPY reports back. For a write action that affects a running production region, that is a material omission.

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% across all four parameters, including the environment pointer back to list_environments, so the schema already does the work. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when coverage is complete.

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 (NEWCOPY) and resource (a CICS program), and parenthetically defines the jargon as a 'phased-in fresh copy', which is genuinely useful. It also notes the mechanism (CMCI resource action), distinguishing it from console-driven or transaction-level siblings like cics_disable_transaction, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 a real prerequisite ('Requires CMCI with actions enabled (CICS TS 5.6+)') and flags it as a 'gated write', implying the approval flow, but never states when to choose this versus other remediation actions or what the gating step actually is. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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