Скопировать рассылку в черновик

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false) already signal a non-destructive write. The description adds genuinely useful context: the copy is never sent, and only_missed filters out recipients of the original — exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs before invoking a duplicate operation.

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 short sentences, with the most decision-relevant fact ('Копия не отправляется') front-loaded and no filler. The phrasing is clipped and slightly telegraphic, which costs a point relative to a fully self-contained statement.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not say what the draft contains or where it lands after duplication, nor does it clarify required context for the broadcast/case parameters. It covers the critical 'not sent' question but leaves the agent to infer the rest.

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 100%, so all three parameters are documented in the schema (case, broadcast, only_missed). The description only re-states only_missed with slightly more precision ('получил исходную рассылку'), adding marginal value over the schema baseline of 3.

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 title 'Скопировать рассылку в черновик' states a specific verb+resource (copy broadcast into draft), and the description confirms a copy is produced. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like broadcasts_save or broadcasts_retry, but the copy-to-draft action is unambiguous.

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 says nothing about when to duplicate versus when to use broadcasts_save, broadcasts_attach, or broadcasts_start. There are no prerequisites or exclusions offered; the agent must infer usage from the name and title alone.

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