copy_notifies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool copies notifies but does not state whether the destination is overwritten, whether existing notifies are preserved, whether both paths must reference animations, or what the operation returns. Significant behavioral details are missing.

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 extremely short and front-loaded with the one-line summary, then a clear Args list. No word is wasted, though it borders on under-specification. The structure is clean and effective for what it does say.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, this description is too sparse. It lacks behavioral details (overwriting, side effects), parameter semantics, and context on when to use it. Although an output schema may exist, it is not provided in the prompt, so the description must stand alone. The tool needs significantly more description to be safely invoked.

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?

The schema shows only parameter names and types (source_path, dest_path: string), with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds 'Source asset path' and 'Destination asset path', which confirms they are asset paths but provides little additional meaning beyond the names. It does not clarify the expected format or that they refer to animation assets specifically.

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 notifies') and the resource ('from one animation to another'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that get, add, or remove notifies. It is a specific, non-tautological statement.

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 use case is implied: use when you want to copy notifies between animations. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., manual recreation) or any exclusions or prerequisites.

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