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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent). The description adds genuinely valuable behavior: the copy gets a new slug, uses a link-only share setting, and passwords/custom domains are not carried over. This is real disclosure beyond the annotations, though return/async behavior is left to the output schema.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and each clause earns its place by adding a distinct constraint (capacity) or copy-state detail (slug, share setting, exclusions). No filler.

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 exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the mutation safety profile. The description completes the picture with preconditions and copy semantics. Only missing a note on whether duplication is a distinct resource from media_kit_create's output, which is a minor 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 100%, so both parameters (media_kit_id and optional name defaulting to the original) are already documented in the schema. The description only references 'a selected media kit' and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the structured fields, so the baseline 3 applies.

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/create a copy) and resource (media kit), with the scope qualifier 'creator-owned copy of a selected media kit'. This clearly distinguishes it from media_kit_create, though it doesn't name that sibling explicitly. Clear and unambiguous for a duplicating tool.

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?

Provides one precondition ('when the plan has capacity') which is useful context, but offers no explicit when-not guidance or comparison against the obvious alternative media_kit_create. Usage is largely implied.

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