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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, correctly indicating a non-destructive write. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations by disclosing the return shape ('Returns the new cloned template (id, name with '(Copy)' suffix, format, tags)') and the naming side effect. This is valuable context for a tool with no output schema, and it contradicts no annotation.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, prior workflow step, return value, and follow-up workflow. The core purpose is front-loaded and there is zero redundancy or 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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, this is complete: the purpose, prerequisite step, return shape, and follow-up steps are all disclosed. An agent knows what to supply (template_id), what it gets back, and what to do next, with annotations covering the write/non-destructive safety profile.

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%; the schema already fully documents template_id, including how to discover valid IDs via nevent_list_templates and the resulting new ID and '(Copy)' suffix. The description reinforces this but adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Clone an existing email template') and states the intent ('create a duplicate as a starting point for a new campaign'). It distinguishes itself from the closest sibling nevent_create_template by framing this as duplication of an existing resource rather than creation from scratch.

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 explicit sequencing context: 'Use after nevent_list_templates to pick a template to duplicate' and 'typically follow with nevent_rename_template and nevent_update_template to customize the clone.' This clearly situates the tool in a workflow, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name a direct alternative such as create_template for blank templates.

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