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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It openly states a key side effect ('Counts toward agent capacity') and clarifies the copy's relationship to the original ('new id, same config'). It does not mention permissions or reversibility, but for a simple non-destructive duplication this is reasonably transparent.

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?

Two short sentences carry all essential information with no filler. The core mechanism is front-loaded, and the capacity side effect is a separate, deliberate second sentence.

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 one-parameter agent duplication action, the description covers the input semantics, the behavioral effect, and a quota-relevant consequence. It does not describe the return value, but with no output schema that is a minor omission rather than a blocking 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by tying the lone id parameter to 'an existing agent,' which clarifies that id identifies the source agent to duplicate. Formatting or additional constraints are not needed for a single string parameter.

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?

Description states a specific action ('Create a copy'), resource ('existing agent'), and unique semantics ('new id, same config'), clearly distinguishing it from create_agent and update_agent. The parenthetical compresses the core behavior into one precise clause.

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 phrase 'existing agent' plus 'copy' establishes clear context: use this when duplicating an already-created agent rather than building one from scratch. It does not explicitly name create_agent or update_agent as alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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