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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't contradict them. It adds one useful behavioral context: 'Icon and shot values may be pack filenames or asset:<media_asset_id>.' This goes beyond fields but is more about data representation than side effects or prerequisites. It doesn't disclose permissions, reversibility, or any consequences of cloning, which are relevant for a mutating 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 sentences with no fluff. The main action is front-loaded, and the asset-format clarification is appended efficiently. Every word 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?

Despite having an output schema, the description omits critical context: How is the source carousel identified? There is no carouselId parameter. Also, it doesn't state any prerequisites (e.g., whether the target project must exist) or what happens to existing slots. For a mutating clone operation, this is a significant gap.

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 only 25% (projectId has a generic 'UUID string' description). The description does not explain the role of any parameter (e.g., projectId as target vs. source, workspaceId, name, idempotencyKey). The note about icon and shot formats refers to the copied content, not the parameters themselves. It fails to compensate for the low schema 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?

States a specific verb ('Duplicate'), the resource ('a carousel'), and the target ('onto a new project'). 'Copies slots' adds a behavioral detail. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations like carousels_migrate or carousels_compile because it is a pure copy operation onto a new project.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention conditions, exclusions, or name any sibling for contrast. An agent has to infer that 'clone' implies a copy action, but there is no explicit direction about when this is preferable to other carousel-related tools.

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