copy_cel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose that the destination is replaced 'by default'. However, it does not explain what happens when replace=false, whether source content is preserved, or what the function returns. This is partial transparency for a potentially destructive operation.

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, front-loaded with the action and target. The default replacement behavior adds meaningful detail without padding. Slightly more explicit parameter mapping would improve it, but it earns its place.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin for a 5-parameter mutation tool. It lacks details on the replace parameter's semantics, failure conditions, prerequisites (e.g., layer existence), and the behavior when the destination cel contains content. An agent could misuse this tool without more context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for meaning. It clarifies the domain ('layer cel') and the default replace behavior, and implicitly maps source_frame/target_frame. Yet it does not explicitly explain the replace parameter's effect or frame indexing conventions, leaving gaps.

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 states a specific verb ('copy') and resource ('one layer cel') with a clear source and destination ('to another frame'), and it adds the default replacement behavior. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like copy_frame or copy_sprite, but the layer-cel specificity gives it enough distinctiveness.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as copy_frame, copy_sprite, or propagate_cels. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions provided, leaving the agent to infer the use case.

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