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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the operation creates a copy with a new name, but it does not disclose side effects, whether the original report is fully preserved, permissions required, or copy contents.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the core behavior is stated immediately.

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 2 fully documented parameters, annotations, and an output schema, this is a minimally complete description for a simple operation. However, it leaves a notable gap by not addressing the dashboard case in the title and not clarifying what is included in the duplicated report.

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%, with both id and name documented as source report ID and name for the duplicated report. The description ('with a new name') only restates the name parameter and adds no additional semantics beyond the 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Duplicate a report with a new name,' which clearly identifies the operation and the required output naming. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like duplicate_asset, and it omits the dashboard case mentioned in the title, so it is clear but not fully differentiating.

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 guidance on when to choose duplicate_report over sibling tools such as duplicate_asset, duplicate_calculated_metric, or create_report_from_template. It simply states the action, leaving the agent to infer the use case from the tool name and schema.

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