copy_effects

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action. It does not explain whether the copy replaces or appends effects on the target layer, whether source effects remain, if the operation is reversible, or any permission requirements. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 a single 7-word sentence, which is overly terse. While conciseness is valued, this level of brevity omits critical details needed to use the tool correctly. It is under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain the effect of 'effectIndices' (e.g., all effects vs. selected), how source and target are identified (name vs. index priority), error handling, or what happens on success. The description provides almost no contextual value.

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 0% description coverage for 7 parameters. The description adds no information about how to use the parameters, which are required (none are marked required), the role of 'effectIndices', or the difference between name and index identifiers. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Copy effects from one layer to another' clearly states the action (copy) and the resource (effects) with a clear source and target. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'apply_effect' (adds new effects) and 'remove_effect' (deletes effects). However, it does not specify whether it copies all effects or a subset, and the schema's 'effectIndices' parameter suggests selectable copying, which is not mentioned.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or contrast with sibling tools like 'reorder_effects' or 'modify_effect_properties'. The user/agent must infer usage from context, which is insufficient for a tool with 7 parameters.

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