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

Annotations already mark the tool as non-read-only and non-destructive, and the description's 'Duplicate' is consistent with that. However, the description does not disclose details like whether the original is left untouched, whether the copy is independent, or what state/child objects are copied, so it adds little beyond 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?

Eight words, no filler, purpose and optional behavior are front-loaded. Every part is informative.

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 (two scalar params, one required, output schema present), and the description plus schema cover the core invocation. It falls just short of fully contextual because it gives no usage caution or clarification about duplication behavior, but nothing critical is missing for a basic call.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema, including id's source in list_goals and new_name as the copy name. The description only echoes the optionality of new_name, so it adds no semantic value beyond schema.

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 names a specific action ('Duplicate') and resource ('a goal'), and adds the optional naming behavior. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling duplication tools like duplicate_report or duplicate_asset.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this over create_goal, update_goal, or archive_goal, nor are prerequisites stated. The only usage signal is inferred from the verb itself, which is no more than what the name already communicates.

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