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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive mutation, so the bar is lower; the description adds meaningful context by specifying that the copy is 'stopped', omits publication/execution history, and will not expose connection secrets. This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not mention permission requirements or rate limits.

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?

Three sentences with zero filler: purpose first, then retry guidance, then the secrets caveat. The most important information is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers the operation's effect (stopped copy, no history), idempotent retry, and what is not returned. It is close to complete, with the only gap being the unexplained agent_id parameter.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It mentions request_key and name only in passing (reuse after an uncertain result) and never explains agent_id or any format, length, or constraint details, leaving most parameter semantics undocumented.

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 specific verb and resource ('Create an independent stopped copy of the latest saved authoring configuration') and distinguishes it from create_agent by specifying that the copy excludes publication and execution history. An agent can tell this apart from siblings without opening the schema.

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?

It provides a concrete retry guideline ('Reuse request_key and name after an uncertain result'), which is useful for idempotent recovery. However, it never states when to choose duplicate_agent over create_agent or update_agent, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the retry hint.

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