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

Annotations only say the operation is not read-only and not destructive; the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the original is untouched, the copy belongs to the duplicator, and template duplication is free. It does not mention return values or side effects, but it enriches the sparse annotations without contradicting them.

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, each earning its place: the core operation, ownership semantics and use case, and a pricing distinction from a sibling behavior. The key verb and object are front-loaded; there is no 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?

For a simple two-parameter action with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, the key behavioral nuances, and a relevant alternative. It could add what the caller should expect back (e.g. the new template's ID), but the action is simple enough that the current description is nearly sufficient.

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 100%, so the schema already names and explains both parameters, including the caveat that name defaults to the source's name. The description itself does not add parameter-level detail, but it does not need to given the schema's coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Copy a template, leaving the original untouched.' It clearly distinguishes this from duplicate_document, duplicate_draft, and duplicate_link by focusing on templates and even notes that duplicating a public link behaves differently.

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 gives concrete usage context: it is the way to make a copy and the way to take a private copy of a colleague-shared template. It also hints at an alternative by contrasting template duplication with public-link duplication, though it does not explicitly say 'use duplicate_link instead for public links.'

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