CopyOptimisation

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'copy', which implies a write operation but does not specify whether it creates new optimisations, overwrites existing ones, or has any side effects. No information about required permissions, idempotency, or error cases.

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 6-word sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It front-loads the core action but lacks necessary details. Every word is functional, but the brevity sacrifices completeness.

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 tool's complexity (copying optimisations between channels, nested body parameter), the description is severely incomplete. No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain return values, success/failure conditions, or how to handle multi-channel scenarios.

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 single parameter is a nested object with description 'Request body', which provides no semantic meaning. The tool description does not clarify the expected structure of the body (e.g., source channel, target channel, product IDs). Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds zero value over the schema.

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 'Copy product optimisations between 2 channels', clearly specifying the verb 'copy', the resource 'product optimisations', and the scope 'between 2 channels'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'Optimise' which apply rather than copy optimisations. However, it does not explain what 'product optimisations' are, leaving some ambiguity.

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 such as 'Optimise', 'OptimiseByChannel', or 'OverrideChannelCatalogProductValues'. It lacks any context about prerequisites or scenarios where copying is appropriate.

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