copy_level

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose key traits: the entire plan (walls, doors, windows, texts) is copied and the result is editable. It also states a meaningful default for elevation ('on top of the last level'). It stops short of explaining activation behavior or independence from the source, but the main side effect is covered.

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, with the core action in the first clause and a key default in the second. No filler or repeated schema information.

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 creation tool with no annotations and 5 parameters, the description omits the meaning of required `name` and the `activate`/`height` options. It covers purpose and elevation default, so it is not useless, but an agent cannot confidently set all parameters. Output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation, but parameter coverage is incomplete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description is the only prose source for parameter meaning. It adds meaning for `source` (the level being copied) and `elevation` (defaults to top of last level), but leaves `name`, `height`, and `activate` unexplained beyond their schema titles. This partial coverage is insufficient for a 5-parameter tool.

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 states a specific action: create a level as a copy of a source, copying the entire plan. This clearly distinguishes it from create_level, which creates a fresh level, and from other siblings. The 'ready to be edited' note reinforces the copy purpose.

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 implies when to use it: when you need a duplicate of an existing level's plan for editing. It does not name alternatives like create_level or set_active_level, nor does it state when not to use it. This is implied rather than explicit.

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