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

Annotations only declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds real context beyond that: the copy is confined to the same workspace, several connected resources are deliberately excluded, and the response reports which of them to reconnect. The main gap is that it never states that repeated calls produce distinct new agents (the non-idempotent consequence).

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, zero filler, and the scope statement is front-loaded before the caveat about excluded resources. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what is duplicated, what is not, where the copy lands, and what the response reports. Only a note on the returned identifier and the non-idempotent effect of repeated calls is missing.

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?

With only 50% schema description coverage, the schema documents only the optional name (default: name with "(copy)"); agent_id is bare. The description touches the naming behavior with "under a new name" but adds nothing about what agent_id accepts (ID vs. name) or format expectations, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

Uses a specific verb and resource ("Copy an agent") and pins down scope with "under a new name in the same workspace", then enumerates exactly what is copied (instructions, model, tools, knowledge). An agent can tell this apart from duplicate_workflow or update_agent without opening a 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?

The description implies when this is appropriate (making a new agent in the same workspace) and gives a useful post-condition: reconnect MCP servers, sub-agents and workflow tools on the dashboard. However, it never names an alternative or says when not to use it (e.g., duplicating into another workspace vs duplicate_workflow for workflows), so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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