Fork a public diagram

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

Annotations indicate the tool is mutating (readOnlyHint false) but not destructive (destructiveHint false). The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it specifies the operation creates a private copy, returns the new diagram id, and the source type (public gallery/curated template). This clarifies the non-destructive mutation behavior without contradicting 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 two sentences, perfectly front-loaded with the action ('Copy a PUBLIC gallery diagram or curated library template'), followed by destination, purpose, and return value. Every clause adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operation, source, destination, and return value. It does not mention edge cases like invalid IDs or permissions, but these are not critical for basic usage. The presence of annotations and a clear schema make this sufficiently complete, though a 5 would require more detail on failure modes or usage prerequisites.

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 for the single parameter is 100% (diagram_id is described as 'A public/library diagram id from search_gallery'), so baseline is 3. The description does not add much beyond the schema—it merely reiterates the source type. No additional semantic richness is provided, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb 'Copy' and resource 'public gallery diagram or curated library template', with the destination ('into your own account (private)') and purpose ('so you can edit it'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_diagram (create new), edit_diagram (modify existing), and import_diagram (likely external import), making the purpose unmistakable.

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: it's for copying a public/library diagram into a private account for editing. It implies usage after search_gallery (as stated in the schema) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The context is strong enough to guide selection, but lacks explicit exclusions compared to a 5.

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