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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the copy is placed below the original, named with '(copy)', is inert until linked, is undoable via remove_funnel_step, and therefore runs without confirmation. It also notes the required API-key permission scope. These details (placement, reversibility, no-prompt rationale) go well past destructiveHint=false.

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?

Front-loaded and readable, but the first two sentences repeat the same facts (copy placed below the original, named with '(copy)'), which is wasted space in an otherwise tight definition.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers placement, naming, reversibility, and permission needs. It is nearly complete, missing only explicit confirmation of what the response contains, which is a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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%, so both parameters are already documented. 'Pass path to give the copy its own URL' restates the path field's schema description with only marginal added meaning and does not clarify optionality or format beyond the 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?

States a specific verb (duplicate/copy) plus resource (funnel step/page) and scope ('places the copy below the original, named with (copy)'). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like list_funnel_steps and remove_funnel_step without opening any 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?

Gives clear usage context: pass path to give the copy its own URL, the copy reaches no one until linked, and remove_funnel_step undoes it. This effectively tells the agent when the operation is safe and reversible, though it stops short of explicitly stating when to prefer this over other funnel-step operations.

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