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

Annotations already convey non-read-only and non-idempotent behavior, and the description adds valuable side effects: the source agent is unchanged and the new clone becomes the session's current agent context. It also discloses auth mode and specific error outcomes, going beyond the structured fields.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: action and route first, then side effects, auth prerequisite, and error cases. Every sentence carries useful information with 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 single-required-param mutation, the description supplies the route, side-effect behavior, auth prerequisite, and error semantics. Although there is no output schema, the information provided is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema already documents all four parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context that name/slug/summary are optional overrides and that the source agent remains unchanged, but it does not need to repeat parameter-level details.

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 'Duplicate an existing saved agent into a new agent' – a specific verb and resource, then adds optional overrides and the exact route. It clearly distinguishes cloning from creating or updating by noting the source agent is unchanged and the clone becomes the current agent context.

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?

Auth requirements are explicit ('app-token mode after ethora-app-select + ethora-auth-use-app'), and error conditions are mapped to 401/403/404/422. It does not explicitly compare against create/update alternatives, but the context makes the intended use clear.

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