copy_entities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'optional relation handling', which hints at the 'copy_relations' parameter behavior, but fails to describe critical aspects like whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens on failure. For a tool that copies entities between zones—potentially involving data mutation—this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Copy entities between zones') and adds a key behavioral note ('with optional relation handling'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 of copying entities between zones, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values, error conditions, side effects, and how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool with 5 parameters and potential data implications, more context is needed to guide 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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal value by implying 'optional relation handling' corresponds to 'copy_relations', but doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional context beyond the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 entities') and the scope ('between zones'), which is specific and actionable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'move_entities' by specifying copying rather than moving, and from 'create_entities' by involving source/target zones. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'merge_zones' or other zone operations, keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

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 doesn't mention when to choose 'copy_entities' over 'move_entities', 'create_entities', or 'merge_zones', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent without contextual usage direction.

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