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

Annotations only include idempotentHint:false, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the new Riddle is an unchanged copy, records it as a duplicate (context.duplicated), is created as a draft, and requires specific permissions (template-use and Riddle-create). It also describes the return envelope and omit behavior, giving a complete picture of side effects and prerequisites.

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 dense but efficiently organized: main purpose first, followed by usage guidance, draft status, return envelope, and permissions. Every sentence contributes value, with no fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded with the operation and distinguishing detail.

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 fully explains the return shape (standard build-configuration envelope, same as riddle_get) and the omit parameter. It covers draft status, permissions, project selection, and the copy behavior (context.duplicated). Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The schema already provides detailed descriptions for all parameters, including defaults and sources. The description adds minimal extra meaning, e.g., advising the omit parameter usage, but it largely reinforces existing schema information rather than adding new semantics.

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 a specific verb and resource: "Creates a new Riddle from a template, as an unchanged copy of it - content, settings and design preset." It clearly distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming riddleTemplate_get and riddle_builder_<type> as the alternative for adaptation, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: "Use this whenever the template is what you want; to adapt it first, read it with riddleTemplate_get and build the edited configuration with a riddle_builder_<type> tool instead." It also notes the draft status and the need to call riddle_publish, covering both usage context and follow-up actions.

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