superset_chart_copy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: dashboard bindings are NOT copied and must be specified via the dashboards parameter. It also states that all visualization parameters, type, dataset, and query_context are copied. This gives the agent a clear safety profile for a mutating operation.

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 efficient and well-organized: a one-line purpose, a two-line behavioral note, and a tidy Args list. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description covers the essential behavior and all three parameters. It does not discuss error scenarios or side effects, but the presence of an output schema likely handles return value expectations, making this sufficiently complete.

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 schema has zero property descriptions, so the description's Args section is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains chart_id, slice_name, and dashboards, including that dashboards is optional and used for binding the copy. This adds value beyond the raw schema types.

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 opens with 'Create a copy of an existing chart with a new name,' using a specific verb (copy) and resource (chart). It clearly distinguishes from sibling create/update tools by explaining exactly what is copied (visualization parameters, type, dataset, query_context) and what is not (dashboard bindings).

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 clear context on when to use this tool: when a duplicate of an existing chart is needed, it copies all relevant settings while allowing new dashboard bindings. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like superset_chart_create or superset_chart_update, so there are no exclusionary statements.

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