copy_skill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains that copying preserves spec and connection and imposes naming constraints. However, it does not disclose what happens to skill_id or skill_name, whether existing tools with the same name are overwritten, or any potential side effects.

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 appropriately sized: three sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is simple, with no output schema and only three parameters, one required. The description covers the core purpose and naming convention but misses parameter semantics for two of three parameters and lacks usage guidance. It is functional but incomplete for full agent understanding.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains new_name but leaves skill_id (the required parameter) and skill_name unexplained. This creates ambiguity about which parameter identifies the source tool and what skill_name represents, failing to fully compensate for the schema gap.

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 a tool' and specifies the result: 'Creates a new tool with same spec and connection.' It also provides a concrete example of custom naming (MVKWeatherV2), making the tool's purpose specific and distinct from sibling tools like create_tool_and_assign_to_agent or deploy_skill.

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 implies usage (when you want to duplicate a tool) and provides an example of using new_name, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool. It gives some context for naming but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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