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

The description materially extends the annotations by revealing non-idempotence: if the call times out it may still have succeeded and blind retries can create duplicates. It also discloses ownership transfer, fresh share links, and that records/integrations/ban state are not copied. This is exactly the kind of behavioral nuance an agent needs beyond the readOnly/destructive hints.

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 with the core action, then quickly states inclusions, exclusions, and a use case. The non-idempotence warning is placed last but earns its place as a critical caveat. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name/schema.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations already present, the description covers the essential behavior: what is created, what is excluded, ownership, and the non-idempotence risk. It also gives a realistic use case. Nothing relevant to invoking it correctly is absent.

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%: sourceFormId and newTitle are fully described in the input schema, including the default title behavior. The description does not add parameter-level derivation information itself. This matches the baseline for a high-coverage schema.

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 precise verb and resource — 'Duplicate a form in the current team' — then enumerates exactly what is cloned (structure, scoring, report, visual settings, translations) and what is not (submissions, sharing, integrations, ban state). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling create/restore/update operations without ambiguity.

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?

The description provides clear context: use it to clone an existing proven quiz and then tweak the copy. It also defines scope by stating what is not copied, which implicitly tells an agent when this tool would not suffice (e.g., if submissions or sharing must be preserved). It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or when to prefer create_form_from_template, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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