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

Goes well beyond the annotations with the 'copies content, never publication, sharing recipients, reader controls, visits, leads or alerts' exclusion list — precisely the state-carryover question an agent cannot answer from readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint. It also grounds the idempotency hint in concrete retry behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and copy semantics front-loaded before the retry note.

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?

Covers scope, copy semantics, and retry handling for a two-parameter mutation. With no output schema, it could have said what the caller gets back (e.g. new document id), which is the only material gap.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains the idempotencyKey's purpose clearly ('same key when retrying'), but the required uuid `id` is only obliquely implied via 'owned document' — the source-vs-new-document role of each parameter is not fully spelled out.

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?

Specific verb (duplicate) plus resource (owned document) and an explicit scope boundary (into a new private draft). An agent can distinguish it from create_document and copy-style siblings without opening the schema.

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?

States the precondition that the source must be an owned document and gives retry guidance tied to the idempotency key. It does not name an alternative sibling or state when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a full routing statement.

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