Copy Decisioning Asset

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation; the description adds real behavioral detail beyond that — that child rules travel with a rule set, and that a lookup table copy carries the entries of its active (or specified) version and is not itself active. It doesn't cover naming collisions or permission requirements.

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-loads the supported types in the first sentence and spends the remainder on the two non-obvious caveats. Slightly fragmented line breaks, but no 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?

Output schema and annotations carry the return/safety burden, and the description covers the non-obvious edge cases (excluded types, version handling). Folder default behavior is delegated to the schema, which documents it, so nothing critical is missing.

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, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: revision_id is described as accepting a version ID or label, and the interaction between revision_id and the lookup table's active version is spelled out.

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 (copy) plus the exact set of copyable asset types, and explicitly names the two types that cannot be copied. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like create_* or get_decisioning_asset immediately.

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?

Gives a clear when-not rule (custom functions and function categories cannot be copied) and clarifies which version of a lookup table gets copied. It does not explicitly route the agent to an alternative tool for the unsupported types, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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