copy_proposal

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent write that is not destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the copy lands in "edit" status, receives a new proposal number, and gets a new link. It stops short of saying the source proposal is left untouched, what permissions are required, or whether related entities (contacts, price tables) are carried over.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Its brevity is a virtue structurally, though the missing detail is penalized under the other dimensions.

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 six-parameter creation-style tool with no output schema and zero schema documentation, this is too thin: the agent cannot tell what each required parameter means or what the call returns beyond a vague "new link". Only the resulting state of the copy is described.

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% across six parameters, so the description carries the full burden and adds nothing. It does not explain that proposal_id is the source, what name and contact_id do on the new record, or what directory_id, contact_people, and account_user_id control.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Copy a proposal") plus the outcome of the copy, which separates it from create_proposal and get_proposal_details. It never names a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says when to copy an existing proposal rather than call create_proposal, nor whether the source proposal must be in a particular state. The agent must infer the intended routing from the name alone.

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