copy_style

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'deep-copy' and 'spaces stripped for styleId', but does not cover potential side effects, permissions, or limitations. A 3 is appropriate given the moderate detail.

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 concise and to the point, including arguments and return value in a clear format. No unnecessary words, but it could be slightly better structured (e.g., bullet points).

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 simple copy tool, the description covers purpose, parameter details, and return value. It lacks error scenarios or use cases, but given the existing output schema specification in the description, it is fairly complete.

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%, so the description should compensate. It explains that source_name_or_id accepts name or styleId and that new_name spaces are stripped, but lacks examples or format constraints. The baseline for low schema coverage is 4, but the description only partially adds value, earning a 3.

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 the action (deep-copy), the resource (existing style), and the outcome (under a new name). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_style, update_style, and delete_style by specifying that it copies an existing style.

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 versus alternatives such as create_style or update_style. It lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios where copying a style is preferable to creating from scratch.

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