activity_copy_save

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It adds that the tool is UI-based and requires Playwright, and patches specific fields (name/time/coupon). However, it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or whether the operation is destructive. The behavioral insight is moderate but incomplete.

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 concise at 7 words plus a requirement note, which is efficient but borderline cryptic. It lacks structure and any breakdown of steps or parameters. Conciseness is acceptable, but the information density is low.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain the overall workflow, prerequisites, return format, or error behavior. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool without additional context.

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 low at 29%. The description mentions 'patch name/time/coupon' mapping roughly to 'activityDate' and 'couponTemplateNo', but 'name' is not a parameter. It does not explain 'sourceId', 'sourceActivityNo', 'country', 'channel', or 'publish'. The added value beyond the schema is minimal and insufficient for compensating the low coverage.

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 states it copies a reference activity, patches name/time/coupon, and saves as a general activity. This verb+resource combination clearly indicates a copy operation, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'activity_edit_save' which edits existing activities. However, 'reference activity' is vague without further context.

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 mentions 'UI copy' and 'Requires Playwright', implying it is a browser automation tool, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'activity_edit_save' for editing or 'activity_list' for listing. It lacks when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations.

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