copy_iterate

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent already knows it mutates. The description adds specific behavioral detail by stating 'Updates the COPY-SYSTEM.md in place,' which names the exact file affected. It does not contradict any annotations.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence provides useful info — the core action, the specific file updated, and the optional scoping — with no wasted words.

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 description covers the essential action and side effect, but with no output schema, it does not mention return values or confirmation behavior. It also lacks details on failure conditions (e.g., missing project path). For a mutation tool, this is a noticeable gap, though the core context is present.

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 parameters are fully documented. The description adds minimal extra value by mentioning 'Optionally target specific screens,' but this is already captured in the schema's description of target_screens. Thus, it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 and resource: 'Iterate on the generated copy system with user feedback' and 'Updates the COPY-SYSTEM.md in place.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like copy_generate and copy_critique by emphasizing in-place modification of an existing system.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when user feedback exists for an already generated copy system, and it mentions optional targeting of specific screens. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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