copy_entities

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

With no annotations, the description discloses important behavior: without confirm=true it returns a PLAN (dry-run). It also explains the layer remapping purpose. Missing details like whether the operation is reversible or requires an active drawing, but the confirm behavior is a significant disclosure.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core function. It uses domain-specific shorthand (AUX -> ZD-*) but stays concise. Slightly dense but no wasted words.

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 an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers the main use case, the confirm behavior, and the key parameter target_layer. For a 10-parameter tool, it provides enough context for an agent to decide when to use it, though some parameter semantics remain vague.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains target_layer (AUX -> ZD-* remapping) and confirm (PLAN vs execution), but dx, dy, rotation, handles, create_layer, and other parameters are not described. Some are inferable from names, but others like create_layer and type remain unclear.

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 clearly states the tool copies entities with displacement, optional rotation, and layer remapping. It gives a concrete use case ('copiar un bano y ajustarlo') which distinguishes it from siblings like transform_entities that likely modify in place.

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 provides specific context: this is the way to copy a bathroom base for adjustment, and target_layer handles AUX -> ZD-* remapping from catalog to production. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer alternatives like transform_entities or insert_block.

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