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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false), the description adds crucial behavioral context: the operation is non-idempotent and can silently succeed on a timeout, and it clarifies ownership changes (new form owned by you) and what data is intentionally excluded. This is exactly the kind of side-effect disclosure that annotations alone do not provide.

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 compact yet comprehensive, with each sentence earning its place: core action, exclusions, use case, and a non-idempotency warning. The main verb and object are front-loaded in the first sentence, making the tool's purpose instantly recognizable.

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 mutation tool with an output schema present, the description covers all essential decision factors: what is cloned, what is not, the use case, and the retry caveat. Nothing an agent needs to safely invoke it is missing; the output schema handles return-value details.

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 coverage is 100%—both sourceFormId and newTitle are fully described in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies. It doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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-resource pair, 'Duplicate a form in the current team,' and enumerates exactly what is cloned (structure, scoring, report, visual settings, translations) and what is not (submissions, sharing, integrations, ban state). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_form or create_form_from_template, which create new forms from scratch or templates.

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 provides a concrete use case—'cloning a proven quiz and tweaking it'—which tells an agent when to reach for this tool. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or give a when-not-to-use rule, but the scope of duplication versus creation is unambiguous from the purpose statement, so the guidance is adequate.

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