Clone a Forms image

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that the operation yields a new object with its own id (i.e., it is a creating clone, not an in-place edit), but it does not warn that repeated calls accumulate duplicate images, nor does it state auth requirements — a notable gap for a non-idempotent write.

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, zero padding, and the primary action is front-loaded ahead of the secondary return-value usage note. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by explaining the return value (new image plus integer id) and how to consume it. For a two-parameter nested-body tool this is nearly complete; it lacks only mention of error/auth behavior.

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 100% (including the important 'name is ignored by the API' note), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds nothing about survey_id, id, or links beyond what the schema already documents; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb+resource+target: 'Copy an existing image into a form', and adds the return contract ('returns the new image with its integer id'). No sibling tool is a plausible substitute, so no differentiation is required, yet an agent can tell exactly what this does.

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?

It gives clear context for use: the returned id is meant to be referenced from a question's, option's, or form style's image, which tells the agent why and where to call it. It stops short of any explicit 'do not use this when...' exclusion, so it falls below the 5 tier.

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