ass_copy_style

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose real behavior beyond the schema: overwrite replaces an existing style instead of failing, and the return payload exposes an "ignored_fields" key hinting that some source fields may not transfer. It says nothing about permissions, where the new style lands in the style order, or whether lines referencing the source are affected.

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?

Front-loaded one-line statement of purpose followed by a tight Args block; each parameter gets a single clause. The Returns block is largely redundant given an output schema exists, but it is short enough not to bloat the definition.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, an output schema (so return values need not be spelled out), and undocumented parameters. The description covers the basics but omits how the copy interacts with the document (style ordering, whether lines are untouched) and any permission or conflict context beyond the overwrite flag.

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 must compensate. It documents all four parameters, but "source: style to copy" and "new_name: name for the copy" essentially restate the titles; only doc_id ("None for the current document") and overwrite ("replace an existing style of that name instead of failing") add genuine meaning.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Copy a style ... under a new name") with the additional qualifier "field for field" that clarifies the copy semantics. It is distinguishable from siblings like ass_add_style, ass_rename_style, and ass_update_style, though it never names them explicitly. Clear but without sibling differentiation in the text.

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?

Usage is only implied: the wording suggests duplicating an existing style, whereas ass_add_style would create one from scratch, and the overwrite flag hints at the failure mode being avoided. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternatives are given.

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