copy_build

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the LIVE safety guard via confirm_live, but says nothing about overwrite semantics in the target channel, required permissions, reversibility, or failure behavior when confirm_live is omitted.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core action first and the safety prerequisite attached to the specific case that needs it.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, key details are missing: whether the copy overwrites or appends, what the response contains, and what error occurs when confirm_live is false against LIVE. The essentials for constructing the call are present, but not for predicting its effect.

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 80%, so binary_id, app, and org are already documented in the schema. The description only adds the confirm_live=true requirement for LIVE targets, which the schema does not convey; to_channel and org get no additional meaning from the prose.

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) and resource (build) with scope: an existing build moved into another release channel, and it names list_channels as the source of the binary id. That cleanly separates it from upload_build, which would create a new binary instead of reusing one.

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?

Tells the agent to obtain binary_id from list_channels and gives an explicit gating condition: copying into LIVE requires confirm_live=true. It stops short of stating when to prefer upload_build or what happens if the target channel already has builds, but the primary selection path is clear.

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