copy_graph

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It reveals the return shape ({graphId, sourcePlatform, targetPlatform, notes[]}), explains notes semantics (TRANSFORM, MANUAL, INFO), details auto-adaptation behavior for Telegram⇄MAX, notes that Instagram copies lack transformations and are flagged at publication, and clarifies preview's non-destructive nature. This exceeds typical transparency.

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 dense yet structured, using semicolons and dashes to cover return value, notes severity, platform-specific transformations, preview mode, and restrictions in a compact block. Every sentence contributes unique information, and the most important action is front-loaded.

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's complexity (cross-platform copying, transformations, preview mode) and absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly covers return values, notes semantics, platform behaviors, and edge cases like Instagram allowlisting. It also clarifies the relationship with publish_graph ('несовместимые узлы будут отмечены при публикации'), making it contextually complete.

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 67%, and description adds meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies targetBotId must be a different bot (same bot forbidden) and elaborates preview=true as a compatibility check with no saving. The graphId parameter, however, is left without additional explanation beyond its obvious role as the source graph ID, an acceptable gap.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Скопировать граф в ДРУГОГО бота' (copy graph to another bot), clearly stating the operation and scope. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling clone_graph by noting 'для дублирования есть clone_graph' (for duplication there is clone_graph), eliminating ambiguity.

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 explicit when-not-to-use guidance: 'Тот же бот запрещён' (same bot is forbidden) and redirects to clone_graph. It also explains when to use preview mode (preview=true for compatibility check only) and distinguishes platform-specific behavior for Telegram/MAX vs Instagram, giving clear context for choosing this tool.

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