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

Annotations already indicate it's a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the resulting copy is in DRAFT status and the name gets '(Copy)' appended. It does not explain all side effects (e.g., what data is copied), but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by essential detail. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema information.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, output schema present), the description covers the key behavior and output characteristics. It doesn't mention potential limitations or when to prefer create, but the combination of description, annotations, and schema is sufficient for correct invocation.

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% with clear descriptions for name, entityId, and entityType (including enum values). The description reinforces the name default ('Original Name (Copy)') but adds no new parameter-level information 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Duplicate' with the resource 'existing record' and enumerates the specific entity types (product, tier, campaign, etc.), distinguishing it from create/update siblings. It also specifies the resulting DRAFT status and naming convention.

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 implies its use case as a copy operation, clearly distinguishing it from create_* tools that start fresh. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the 'Duplicate' verb and entity list provide clear context for when to use it.

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