create_working_copy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the copy is at filesystem level and that the original is not opened in write mode, which are important safety behaviors. It does not cover what happens if the destination file exists or verify write failures, but for a copy tool this is reasonable 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and subsequent sentences add essential context. There is no filler or redundancy, every sentence 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?

The tool is simple (2 optional parameters) and an output schema exists, which reduces the need for return-value details. The description covers the purpose, mandatory usage, and path default, but leaves the suffix parameter unaddressed. Still, for a safety-oriented copy tool, it is sufficiently complete to guide correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'path' parameter by noting that without it the active drawing is used, which adds meaningful context. However, the 'suffix' parameter is completely unexplained, leaving a gap in parameter understanding.

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 a specific action: 'Duplica un DWG en disco' (duplicates a DWG on disk), and emphasizes the scope 'antes de tocarlo' (before touching it). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_drawing, save_drawing, and copy_entities, which operate differently.

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 explicitly says 'Obligatorio antes de cualquier operacion destructiva' (mandatory before any destructive operation), giving a clear when-to-use condition. It also clarifies that without a path it uses the active drawing. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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