copy_member

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint: false (write operation), destructiveHint: false (non-destructive), and openWorldHint: true. The description adds no behavioral information beyond 'copy', which is already implied. It does not disclose potential side effects, authorization needs, or behavior if the source or destination does not exist.

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 a single, focused sentence that conveys the core purpose. It is not overly verbose and avoids unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly stating the parameters' expected format.

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 has an output schema and many sibling tools (29), the description lacks completeness. It does not explain what the tool returns, how its behavior differs from similar tools like rename_dataset or copy operations, or mention any error conditions. The agent likely needs more context to use it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It adds that parameters should use 'DATASET(MEMBER) notation', explaining how to construct the dataset strings. However, it does not describe each parameter individually (e.g., what source_dataset and destination_dataset represent) and leaves ambiguity about whether the member is part of the dataset name or a separate parameter.

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 'Copy a member from one dataset to another' which clearly indicates the action and resource. However, the input schema only includes dataset parameters without a member parameter, causing ambiguity about how the member is specified. The parenthetical mentions 'DATASET(MEMBER) notation' but does not clarify that the dataset parameter itself should contain the member. This reduces clarity from a 4 to a 3.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rename_member or other sibling tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or situations where this tool is preferred. The description is entirely silent on usage context.

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