copy_prompt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only states the core operation. The word 'copy' usefully implies the original is preserved, but the description does not disclose what gets duplicated (tags, types, references), whether a new prompt ID is minted in the destination, conflict behavior, or side effects — significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

An eight-word sentence with zero filler; the verb is front-loaded and every word carries meaning. It avoids redundant restatement of the tool name or schema content, making it an efficiently structured 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must supply behavioral context on its own, and it falls short: it doesn't address prerequisites (destination book must exist, active book requirement), copy semantics, or result behavior. For a mutation tool with 3 parameters, this is incomplete even though the parameters themselves are well-documented in the schema.

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% — every parameter already has a clear description, including the active-book fallback for source_book_id — so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'from one book to another' restates the source/destination relationship but adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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') on a specific resource (a prompt) and names the source/destination relationship ('from one book to another'), making the operation unambiguous. None of the 15 sibling tools describe a cross-book duplication operation, so the description inherently distinguishes copy_prompt from add_prompt and update_prompt.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over add_prompt or update_prompt, and names no exclusions or alternatives. The only usage hint ('optional if using the active book as source') lives in the input schema, not the description, so an agent gets no context about prerequisites or selection criteria.

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