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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds the key non-obvious trait: this operation is not idempotent, each retry makes another copy. That is real value beyond the annotations, though it doesn't state what the response contains (e.g., new entry ID) beyond implying the copy is findable via list_entries.

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?

Two tight sentences; the core action is front-loaded and the retry hazard follows as the secondary but important caution. No wasted words.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description implies the returned copy is retrievable via list_entries while covering the mutation's non-idempotency risk. Slightly short on what exactly gets copied or the return shape, but adequate for a two-parameter mutation with annotation coverage.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the description needn't repeat them. It adds no syntax or scoping detail (e.g., cross-project behavior) beyond the schema 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 and resource ('Duplicate an existing collection entry with all its content'), which immediately separates it from create_entry (new entry) and duplicate_page (pages). An agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly warns that retries create additional copies and directs the agent to list_entries to recover a lost answer, naming the sibling tool. It does not cover when to duplicate vs. re-create from scratch, so it stops short of a full 5.

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