copy_variant

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

Beyond the annotations (which already declare idempotent, non-destructive, non-read-only), the description adds that the copy is server-side and atomic, copies EVERY field, and that the destination receives a draft requiring a separate publish. This is exactly the kind of downstream-state disclosure annotations cannot convey.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by the routing guidance and a motivating anecdote. It is slightly long, but the parenthetical story earns its place by warning against the manual re-typing anti-pattern rather than padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description still conveys the key outcome (a draft in the target locale, published separately) and the atomicity guarantee. It omits what identifiers are returned, but for a copy tool this is close to complete.

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 documentId, fromLocale, toLocale and site are already well documented in the schema. The description's 'name, slug and EVERY field' clarifies copy scope rather than adding parameter-level syntax, 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 (copy), resource (a document's working version), and scope (name, slug and EVERY field) plus the directional transform (locale to locale). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like duplicate_content, move_content, and update_content without opening their schemas.

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 explicit when-to-use (content that landed in the wrong language branch) and a strong when-not (never re-type field by field), reinforced by a concrete failure anecdote. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling tool by name, so it falls just short of the top mark.

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