copy_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation and that the result is a draft; it does not disclose whether the original event is modified, what data is copied (e.g., ticket classes, capacity tiers, teams), or any permission or side-effect caveats.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and outcome with no filler or redundant words. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and a simple but consequential operation, the description is thin. It omits what exactly is copied, whether the original remains untouched, and any prerequisites. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but behavioral details beyond the basic action are underspecified.

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 description coverage is 0% for event_id, and the description's phrase 'existing event' clarifies that event_id refers to the source event to copy. This adds some meaning beyond the bare schema, but it doesn't explain constraints like whether the event must exist, its required state, or the format of the ID.

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 a specific verb ('Clone/copy'), a resource ('an existing event'), and the outcome ('into a new draft event'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like create_event and update_event because it explicitly duplicates an existing event into a draft, not creating from scratch or modifying.

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 implies usage: use this tool when you want to duplicate an existing event into a draft. However, it provides no explicit when-not guidance or alternatives (e.g., 'use create_event for new events from scratch'), leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context without direct comparison to sibling tools.

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