copy_auth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that it copies config, but does not clarify whether the copy overwrites existing auth on the target, if it merges, or if special permissions are needed. This lack of detail leaves ambiguity about the tool's side effects.

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 consists of two short, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides a context for use. No extraneous information is present.

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?

The tool is simple with two parameters and no output schema. The description captures the core function and a typical use case. However, it lacks behavioral details (e.g., overwrite behavior) that would make the description fully self-sufficient, especially without annotations.

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% with both parameters described. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema (it clarifies the direction of copy but does not provide additional constraints or format details). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 authentication config') and the resources ('from one project to another'). It also provides a use case that distinguishes it from siblings like set_basic_auth or login_project, which set or manage auth individually.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'when multiple projects share the same domain/credentials.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the given hint sufficiently guides the agent toward appropriate usage.

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