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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context: it implies creating a copy without modifying the source. It does not disclose side effects such as whether the copy is shallow/deep, whether permissions are copied, or if there are limits on naming. Given annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate—the description adds some value but lacks rich behavioral details.

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 concise sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It front-loads the primary action and object, making it immediately scannable. Every word contributes to the meaning, so it earns full marks for conciseness and structure.

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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters, both documented in the schema, and an output schema exists so return values are covered. The description captures the core action. Minor gaps include whether the new name must be unique or if there are constraints on duplicating (e.g., limits), but these are not critical for an agent to call the tool correctly. Given the low complexity and existing structured data, the description is largely complete.

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%: both parameters 'id' and 'new_name' have descriptive text in the schema. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. With full schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed that.

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 states the action clearly: 'Duplicate a custom-data dataset with a new name.' The verb 'duplicate' with the specific resource 'custom-data dataset' precisely identifies the operation and differentiates it from sibling duplicate tools like duplicate_asset or duplicate_report. The title aligns with the description, providing a distinct and unambiguous purpose.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. The purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer it should be used when duplicating a custom dataset, but no context is given about prerequisites, uniqueness of the new name, or when other duplicate tools might be more appropriate. This is implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

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