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

Annotations only declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write. The description goes well beyond that: the copy is private to the caller's human, lands in the same space only if they can open it, and comments, versions and sharing are not carried over. It also flags type-specific behavior (storyboard copies draw from the same roll, presentation copies drop unwritten slides). It never says what identifier the new copy returns.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. A few clauses are idiomatic and slightly opaque ('picks from the same roll', 'drops slides not written yet'), which costs a little clarity but not length.

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 one-parameter duplication tool with no output schema, the description covers safety-relevant behavior (privacy, space placement, what is not copied) thoroughly. The remaining gap is the return value — an agent cannot tell whether it receives a new doc id to chain into read_doc or share_link.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('A doc id from get_task or list_space'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no format, scope, or constraint detail about doc_id, leaving this at the baseline.

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 (copy/duplicate) plus the exact resource set (doc, presentation, storyboard) and the key invariant: 'keeping the original as it is.' That distinguishes it from create_doc and read_doc without needing the schema opened.

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?

'to start the next round from' gives a clear use context (fork a working copy rather than mutate the source). It stops short of naming an alternative such as create_doc or stating when duplication is the wrong choice, so no explicit exclusions.

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