copy_study

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well, disclosing key behavioral traits: 'The copy starts in Draft status with no participant sessions' and enumerating exactly what is copied. It could add more details about permissions or non-copied fields, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 front-loaded with the main action first. Every sentence adds value, and the Args section is directly tied to the parameter, making it easy to parse.

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 single parameter and no annotations, the description covers the operation's behavior, the resulting state, and an explicit use case. The presence of an output schema means return values are already handled, so the description is complete for this scope.

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?

The description fully compensates for 0% schema coverage by explaining the only parameter: 'study_id: The unique identifier of the study to copy.' This gives the agent precise semantic meaning beyond the bare property title.

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: 'Duplicate an existing study and all its sections.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like create_study and delete_study by describing the copy behavior and scope.

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 a clear use case: 'Useful for iterating on a study template without modifying the original.' This implies when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it falls 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.