copy_library

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing merge semantics (tokens.json merges by token name), overwrite policy (existing files skipped, never overwritten), and the destructive effect of move=true trashing source files. This is exactly the behavioral detail an agent needs for a destructive tool.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, with the copy-to-new-style workflow stated first and behavioral caveats (merge/skip/move) following. Every sentence carries information; no 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?

For a destructive, no-output-schema mutation tool, it covers the essentials: source/target forms, item scope, merge/overwrite behavior, and the move side effect. Return values and error handling are unstated, a minor gap given the annotations.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning on top: concrete example item paths and the semantic outcome of the items parameter (merge for tokens.json, skip for others, omit for everything).

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 and resource (copy library files from one library to another) and enumerates the valid library forms. Clearly distinguishes itself from read-only siblings like get_library and save_to_library.

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 a concrete use case ('copy to a new style:<Name> to start a new style from an old one') that tells the agent when this tool is the right choice. It lacks explicit when-not or named alternatives, but the context is clear.

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