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

The annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond those annotations by specifying that the destination must be 'another project the token can access' and that the copy's summary is returned. This gives useful operational context without contradicting the annotations.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and then adds the key optional behaviors. Every clause earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately includes that the operation 'Returns the copy's summary.' The tool is simple enough that the description plus the 100%-covered schema covers the essential behavioral and parameter information. A minor gap is that it does not mention whether related assets or revisions are copied, but this is not critical for a basic duplicate operation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds at least one meaningful nuance beyond the schema by noting the destination project must be accessible by the token, which is a permission-relevant detail for destinationProjectId. It also implicitly maps 'new name' to the name parameter, but the schema already documents these fields well.

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 clearly identifies the operation as 'Duplicate a script' with an optional new name and optional destination project, which is distinct from creating or importing a script. It is a specific verb+resource pair with enough detail to differentiate it from sibling tools like create_script and import_script.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when an existing script needs to be copied, optionally renamed, or moved to another project. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the duplicate semantics are clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately among siblings.

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