copy_region

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., whether existing stamps with the same name are overwritten, or if the original region is preserved). The behavior of the stamp storage is obtuse.

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?

A single sentence of 8 words is highly concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word is necessary and contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is minimal. It covers the basic intent but omits details about stamp lifetime, naming conflicts, and region constraints, which are important for effective use.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema; for example, the 'name' parameter is simply 'string' without further constraints. A score of 3 is appropriate as it meets the baseline but lacks extra clarification.

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 action 'copy a region' and its purpose 'into a named stamp for later paste_stamp'. This distinguishes the tool from siblings like paste_stamp and cut_region, as it focuses on storing a region for future use.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cut_region or copy_from_document. The description implies a workflow with paste_stamp but does not clarify when to choose this over other region copy operations.

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