copy_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'copy,' implying a non-destructive action, but does not explain any side effects, requirements, or what happens to the source object. This is insufficient for a tool that creates new objects.

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 short sentence with no unnecessary words, making it very concise and front-loaded. It gains no extra benefit from structure but is appropriately sized for the limited content it presents.

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 presence of similar sibling tools and an output schema, the description is too terse. It does not explain the return behavior, how this copy differs from other copy operations, or what a 'GEOM copy' entails, leaving significant contextual gaps.

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 description gives no parameter information. With 0% schema description coverage, it fails to explain that 'source_ref' is the object to copy and what 'name' controls, leaving the agent to infer essential details from the schema alone.

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 it creates a GEOM copy of an object, using the verb 'Create' and the resource 'GEOM copy.' However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling 'duplicate_object,' which likely performs a similar operation, so its uniqueness is unclear.

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. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or when to avoid it, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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