Copy Integration Package (from Hub / Discover)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key requirement ('Requires ALLOW_WRITE') and the verb 'copy' implies the source remains unchanged. However, it does not describe what happens if a package with the same ID already exists, whether the operation is idempotent, or the response format after copying.

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 and front-loaded with the action. Every word earns its place: the first sentence states purpose, the second states a permission prerequisite. No redundant information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides sufficient context: what the tool does, where from, where to, and a permission requirement. It does not describe the return value, but none is required for invoking this copy operation; the confirm parameter is documented in the schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds only a small amount of domain context (e.g., 'standard/partner package') that helps interpret packageId, but it does not explain the confirm parameter's role beyond what the schema already states.

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 clearly states the action ('Copy'), the resource ('a standard/partner package'), and the destination ('into the design workspace'). It also gives an example source ('from the Discover catalog'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, delete, or list integration packages.

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 implies the use case: bringing a package from the Hub/Discover catalog into the design workspace. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to select this tool over its siblings.

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