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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. Beyond that, the phrase about module rules hints that duplicated content varies by type, but the description never says what is copied (relations, published state, settings), how the copy is named, or what happens on unsupported types — the details an agent actually needs.

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 sentence with the verb first and no filler. Its brevity is efficient rather than padded, though it is under-specified for a tool with a 49-value enum.

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 mutation tool with a 49-entry type enum, no output schema, and no per-parameter documentation, the definition is far too thin. An agent cannot tell whether the duplicated record is returned, what its id will be, or which types support duplication.

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 0% and neither parameter is mentioned: 'id' is undocumented and the 49-value 'type' enum is only obliquely alluded to via the word 'module'. With a large enum and no per-type notes, the description leaves the agent to infer that 'type' selects the record family and its duplication rules.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Dupliquer') with a resource ('un élément'), so the intent is unmistakable at a glance. It falls short of a 5 because 'élément' is vague relative to the record-centric name and it never distinguishes itself from create_record or create_site_from_template, which an agent could easily confuse with duplication.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. read access to the source record, licensing limits), and no named alternative such as create_record when duplication is not appropriate. The only usage hint, 'selon les règles de son module', describes internal behavior rather than when an agent should select this tool.

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