modifiers.copy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action, omitting important details like whether the copy maintains original settings, whether it works on all modifier types, or if any destructive side effects occur.

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?

At 5 words, the description is extremely concise but at the cost of informativeness. It is front-loaded but lacks necessary details, making it under-specified for the tool's complexity (3 parameters, several siblings).

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the copy operation's scope, effects on the original modifier, or how new_name is used. The agent lacks context to use the tool confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it adds no extra meaning about the parameters (name, object, new_name). The schema's titles provide minimal clues, but the description fails to elaborate on how they are used or their effects.

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 'Copy a modifier in the stack' clearly states the action (copy) and the resource (modifier in the stack). It distinguishes from sibling tools like modifiers.add (create new), modifiers.remove (delete), and modifiers.move (reorder) by specifying duplication.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., modifiers.add or modifiers.duplicate? Not present). It does not specify prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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