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

The annotations only cover idempotentHint: false, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds meaningful context: the new Riddle is recorded as a copy (context.duplicated), is a draft, requires template-use plus Riddle-create permissions, and returns the standard build-configuration envelope. These details go well beyond the structured 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?

Every sentence earns its place: it covers what the tool does, when to use it, the draft lifecycle, permissions, and response shape. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. The only downside is the density of related caveats, but nothing is redundant with the schema in a harmful way.

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?

For a non-idempotent creation tool with no output schema, the description explains the output envelope, its relation to riddle_get, the omit parameter, draft state, publishing workflow, and required permissions. The remaining parameter details (id, title, projectId) are fully documented in the schema, so no needed information 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?

The schema already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by explaining the omit parameter's practical use, specifically that omit: ['build.omittedDefaults'] cuts most of the response size. This compensates beyond the plain schema definitions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it 'Creates a new Riddle from a template, as an unchanged copy'. It clearly distinguishes the tool from riddleTemplate_get and the riddle_builder_* tools by defining the exact operation and the fact it preserves content, settings, and design preset.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this whenever the template is what you want'. It also tells the agent what to do instead when adaptation is needed, pointing to riddleTemplate_get and riddle_builder_<type>, and explains that the result is a draft requiring riddle_publish.

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