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

The description is highly transparent about what the tool does and does not copy, including specific elements and exclusions. This adds significant value beyond the annotations (which only indicate non-readOnly, non-destructive, etc.). No contradictions.

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 concise and well-structured: front-loaded with the main action, followed by a list of copied items, exclusions, optional parameters, and requirements. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

The description covers parameters and behavioral details well, but lacks information about the return value (e.g., the new draft's ID). For a tool with no output schema, this is a minor gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning for three parameters (source_event_id required, optional new_start_date/new_end_date) but omits the new_name parameter. It compensates partially but not fully, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool duplicates an event's setup into a new draft, listing copied elements (name, description, etc.) and what is not copied (guests/RSVPs/sales). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_event_draft or update_event_draft.

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 provides clear usage context: requires source_event_id and that the user must be a host. It specifies optional parameters (new_start_date/new_end_date). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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