Copy Checklist

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral load. It usefully discloses that all child items are duplicated and that source and destination may live on different boards, but it omits whether the source is left untouched, what identity/permission requirements apply, and what the operation returns.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the most decision-relevant facts (includes items, cross-board) front-loaded. Nothing to trim.

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 four-parameter copy operation with no output schema, the description covers the behavior an agent most needs to know before calling it. It is close to complete, with only minor gaps around permissions and the shape of the result.

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%, so sourceChecklistId, cardId, name, and pos are all fully documented in the schema with defaults and accepted values. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (copy) and resource (checklist) and immediately clarifies scope: the copy includes all items and works across boards. This distinguishes it from copy_card and create_checklist, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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 implied by the description — use this when you need an existing checklist duplicated onto another card — but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. create_checklist or manual reconstruction via get_checklist_items + add_checklist_item, and no mention of prerequisites such as permissions on the destination card.

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