copy_presentation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it explains overwrite refusal behavior, the backup rotation into .ks4p-backups, undoability via manage_backups, and that the source file is never modified. This goes well beyond a basic mutation warning.

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 compact and front-loaded, starting with the core operation and use case, then the overwrite/backup behavior, then the safety guarantee. Each sentence adds distinct information, with 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 copy operation with three simple parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameter semantics, failure/overwrite behavior, backup/recovery path, and source immutability. Nothing needed to call the tool correctly is missing.

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%, yet the description compensates by explaining dest_path's explicit-path role, overwrite's default false and refusal behavior, and the source file (file_path) being untouched. Every parameter is given semantics beyond the bare 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?

States a specific verb ('copy') and a specific resource ('deck') with the byte-for-byte mode, and distinguishes itself from create_snapshot by noting this tool takes an explicit dest_path rather than generating a DTG-stamped name. An agent can immediately tell what operation this performs and how it differs from the closest sibling.

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?

Provides the concrete use case (working copy before heavy edits) and names create_snapshot as the alternative for automatic DTG-stamped copies. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use this tool, but the comparison gives sufficient routing context.

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