make_clean_copy

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the cost (paid TextIn call), that the source is preserved (consistent with destructiveHint=false), that output quality needs human/visual verification (question-stem damage), and that repeats do not resubmit (matching idempotentHint=true). It still omits where the resulting copy goes or how it is retrieved.

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 dense sentence front-loads the key precondition (only when blank re-practice is needed) and then covers cost, preservation, verification, and idempotency without 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?

For a one-parameter, paid, external-call tool with no output schema and annotations already covering the safety profile, the description covers when to call and the caveats. It remains incomplete on the return artifact and retrieval path, which matters for a tool that produces a new copy.

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 0% and evidence_id has no description, but the prose references a 'saved evidence crop', implicitly tying evidence_id to that object. This adds a little meaning but no format, sourcing, or validation detail, so it only reaches the baseline-with-partial-compensation level.

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 names a specific action (create a blank/clean copy of a saved evidence crop by having TextIn erase it) and states the outcome (the original stays unchanged). It is distinguishable from siblings like read_evidence or crop_document, though it does not explicitly name a sibling for contrast.

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?

It gives a clear trigger condition: call only when the user needs a blank question for re-practice. It also flags that the call is paid, which is real usage guidance. It does not, however, compare against an alternative such as re-reading or re-cropping the evidence.

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