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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false). The description adds substantive context they cannot: the exact field-level copy set, the explicit exclusion of guests/RSVPs/sales, the host-authorization requirement, and the fact that the result lands as a private draft needing a separate publish step.

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?

A single front-loaded paragraph where each clause carries distinct information — copy set, exclusions, options, prerequisite, and next step. Nothing is redundant with the title or schema, and the critical precondition is not buried.

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 4-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the precondition, the resulting state, the copied/excluded data, and the identifier (newEventId) needed for the follow-up publish_event call. An agent has everything required to invoke and chain it 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the load and largely does: it flags source_event_id as required, marks new_start_date/new_end_date as optional, and explains the default naming behavior ('(Copy)' suffix) that governs new_name. It stops short of format/constraint detail, but every parameter's meaning is covered.

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?

States a specific verb ('Duplicate') plus resource ('an event's setup into a new draft') and then enumerates exactly what is and is not carried over. An agent can distinguish this from create_event_draft, update_event_draft, and create_event_series without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear preconditions ('Requires source_event_id; you must be a host') and an explicit follow-up ('after the host reviews it, call publish_event with its newEventId'), which routes the agent through the workflow. It does not name the competing alternatives (create_event_draft, create_event_series) or state when-not-to-use, so it falls short of a 5.

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