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

The description goes far beyond the schema: it states exact cloned fields, what is deliberately excluded, that share links are regenerated, and that the operation is not idempotent after a timeout. This is especially important for a mutating tool with no annotations to disclose side effects.

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 front-loaded, covers what, what-not, and how-to-avoid-duplication in four dense sentences. Every sentence adds meaningful value, and the non-idempotency warning is high-value rather than filler.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description thoroughly covers selection and side-effect safety. The only notable gap is that it does not explicitly state what the tool returns (such as the new form object/id), which would be helpful in a multi-step workflow.

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 input schema already documents both parameters fully, including the default title for newTitle. The description adds no significant parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 form') and precisely enumerates what is and is not cloned, making its purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from related sibling tools by stating it creates a brand-new copy with fresh share links.

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 clear usage context: 'useful for cloning a proven quiz and tweaking it', and warns against relying on it for things like preserving submission records or sharing. It does not name a specific alternative tool to use instead, but the 'does not copy' list clearly communicates when not to use it.

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