copy_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it enumerates the copied elements (payment options, payout method, refund policy, tax settings), lists concrete 400 error codes with meanings, notes auth via Bearer token, and states the return is the new Event object. It omits what is NOT copied (attendees, orders, ticket sales) and the initial state of the copy, which for a duplication tool is a notable gap.

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?

Front-loaded first sentence, then clearly labeled sections (ENDPOINT, COPIED ELEMENTS, ERRORS, AUTHENTICATION). Slightly verbose with the raw endpoint path, but every block is scannable and useful; nothing is pure 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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers origin, effect, error modes, auth, and return shape. It is only short of describing what is left behind by the copy, which would help an agent predict side effects.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. However the error section adds real constraint semantics for the optional start/end parameters (end must be 1 minute to 365 days after start; start between now and 10 years out) that the schema does not express, so it earns above baseline.

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 and resource ('Copy an Event, creating duplicate with new Event ID') and distinguishes itself from the many event-mutating siblings (create_event, update_event, delete_event). The first sentence alone tells an agent exactly what the tool produces.

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?

Usage is implied by the semantics of 'copy' versus 'create', but the description never states when to prefer this over create_event or update_event, nor what preconditions apply to the source event (e.g. must be unpublished). Adequate but inferential.

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