hcl_stage_copy

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

The annotations already declare that this is not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive, and closed-world; the description is consistent with that. It adds that the result is an isolated project for safe verification, but it does not explain what is copied, what side effects occur, or how the stage is initialized.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. Its brevity is appropriate structurally, though it leaves important details unstated.

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?

An output schema and annotations exist, so return values and basic safety are partly covered. However, for a tool that creates a project from required path and stage inputs, the description is too sparse: it does not clarify parameter meaning, isolation behavior, or practical constraints.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters. The required project_path and stage_name are only loosely implied by "HCL project" and "stage," while idempotency_key is entirely unaddressed.

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 gives a clear verb and resource: "Create an isolated HCL project." It also adds a specific context ("safe live-gate verification"), but it does not distinguish itself from nearby project/stage siblings such as hcl_open_project or hcl_stage_plan.

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 phrase "for safe live-gate verification" implies when the tool is useful, so usage is suggested rather than explicit. It does not state when not to use it or name an alternative tool for related project or stage operations.

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