copy_astrometric_solution

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the target's pixels are unchanged and that dimensions must match, which is useful. However, it doesn't state whether the target's existing WCS is overwritten, whether observation keywords are merged or replaced, or whether the source file must be open. These are meaningful behavioral gaps for a metadata-mutation 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?

Two sentences, no filler. The core action is front-loaded, the constraint is stated, and the non-destructive nature is clarified. Every sentence 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?

For a 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. The main gaps are behavioral: overwrite semantics for existing WCS/keywords and whether the source must be an open image or just a file path. These are relevant for an agent deciding whether to call this tool and what to expect afterward.

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 already documents both parameters. The description adds the relationship between them (source carries the WCS, target receives it) and the dimension constraint, but doesn't add format or path details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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'), a specific resource ('astrometric solution (WCS) and observation keywords'), and the source/target relationship. It also clarifies what is NOT copied ('the target's pixels are unchanged'), which distinguishes it from image-copying tools like clone_image or crop_image.

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 gives a clear precondition ('Source and target must have the same dimensions') and implies the use case: transferring WCS/observation metadata from a file to a view. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like run_plate_solve, but the sibling list shows plate solving is the alternative for creating a WCS, while this tool copies an existing one. The context is clear enough for an agent to select it.

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