Copy setup between profiles

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the sparse annotations: transactional rollback with rollback-status reporting, dry_run semantics, snapshot-before-write, and a named revert tool. This is exactly the kind of context annotations (only readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/destructive hints) do not convey. No contradiction with annotations since readOnlyHint=false matches the write 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?

Dense but efficient; every clause carries information (modes, transactional behavior, dry_run, snapshot, revert). Front-loaded with the core purpose before the details. Slightly long but nothing is wasted.

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?

Thorough for a complex 6-param mutating tool with no output schema: covers modes, credentials, platform mapping, transactionality, and recovery. The only gap is that it never describes what the response/return value looks like, which matters since there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 only 33% (2 of 6 params described), so the description must compensate. It explains settings_mode (merge vs replace), provider_credentials (none/merge/replace), and platforms defaults, which the schema leaves mostly unexplained. Source/target profile IDs are self-evident as integers 1-6, so no loss there.

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+resource ('Copy a profile setup to another profile') with cross-platform nuance. The sibling nuvio_copy_settings is very similar in intent, and the description doesn't name it to differentiate, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Explains the mode choices (merge/replace), provider-credentials handling (none/merge/replace), and when dry_run is appropriate, plus the revert path via nuvio_undo. It gives clear context on how to operate but never explicitly states when to prefer this over the sibling copy_settings tool.

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