copy_schedule

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). Description adds that it returns a new Schedule, which aligns. No contradictions, but lacks detail on side effects or parameter constraints.

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?

Two concise sentences plus arg list, no wasted words. Front-loaded with core action. Ideal structure for quick comprehension.

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?

With output schema present and one parameter fully described, the tool is completely specified. Sibling list provides context for alternative tools. No gaps.

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 provides only type and title ('Schedule Id'), while description adds 'Schedule UUID to copy', clarifying the parameter's purpose. With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates well for a single 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?

Description clearly states 'Duplicate an existing schedule' with specific verb and resource. Differentiates from siblings like create_schedule and update_schedule by suggesting a workflow: copy then update to rename.

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?

Explicitly mentions use case: 'creating seasonal variants from an existing template' and suggests pairing with update_schedule. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but context is sufficient given sibling tool list.

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