Copy an object into your module

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds meaningful non-obvious behavior: omitting new_id fully overrides the original with the same id, and a plain 'name' gets a fresh {=id}. That override semantics is exactly the detail an agent needs to avoid clobbering vanilla content. It doesn't mention writability prerequisites or return behavior, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

Two sentences, purpose first, then the critical edge-case behavior. Zero filler and front-loaded.

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 destructive mutation tool with seven parameters (including a nested set object) and no output schema, the description covers the surprising override behavior and the id-generation nuance. Only minor gaps remain, such as the writable-module requirement and the effect of the validate flag.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics beyond the schema for two parameters: the new_id omission override rule and the name-to-{=id} behavior. Those are interpretations the raw schema strings don't convey.

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 (copies) and resource (an existing object into a writable module under a new id), and grounds it with concrete examples (weapon/troop/hero/culture). An agent can distinguish it from write_object, create_module, or set_attributes without opening the schema.

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 clear context for why you'd pick this tool ('the fastest way to make a new weapon/troop/hero/culture based on an existing one'), which implies when it beats authoring from scratch. It never names an explicit alternative or an exclusion, so it stops 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.