copy_style

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It mentions 'deep-copy' and a space-stripping behavior for the styleId, but does not disclose potential limitations (e.g., cannot copy built-in styles) or side effects.

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, covering purpose, parameters, and return in a few lines. However, the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' format is somewhat verbose and could be more structured.

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 the presence of an output schema, the return description is partially sufficient. But the description lacks details on error conditions (e.g., style not found) or constraints like uniqueness of new_name, making it incomplete for a copy operation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining source_name_or_id as 'Name or styleId' and new_name as 'Name for the new style (spaces stripped),' adding meaning beyond the schema's titles.

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 specifies 'Deep-copy an existing style under a new name,' clearly indicating the action (copy) and resource (existing style). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_style and update_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 usage is implied by the description: copy an existing style when a duplicate is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like create_style for new styles.

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