Copy elements to other stories

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by explaining the relative-elevation semantics with a concrete worked example, the top-linked wall/column behavior, host/opening travel, and the group handling (Suspend Groups toggled and restored). It also documents the return structure, which is significant given there is no output schema.

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?

Front-loads the core relative-elevation semantics and packs supporting detail into tight parentheticals. The final return-shape sentence is dense but justified because no output schema exists.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the semantics, edge cases (groups, hosted elements), the dependency on get_stories, and the response shape. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly appears to be missing.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters, including the accepted story formats and the includeGroupMembers default. The description only adds a pointer to get_stories, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource (duplicates elements onto other stories) with the defining constraint of keeping elevation relative to the home story, which cleanly separates it from copy_elements and move_elements. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete selection guidance (copy walls/roofs/slabs rather than their windows/doors; hosted openings travel with their host) and points to get_stories for resolving story references. It lacks an explicit statement of when to prefer this over same-story copy_elements, but the context is clear enough to route correctly.

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