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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower, but the description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say whether the copy gets a new ID/name, which folder it lands in, whether the original is untouched, or whether auth is required.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action. The trailing raw endpoint 'POST /api/v2/strategy/code/duplicate' is redundant for an agent and could be trimmed.

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 no output schema and a zero-coverage nested parameter, the description is too thin: an agent cannot tell what the resulting duplicate looks like, whether the original is preserved, or what success returns.

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?

There is one required parameter ('body.id') with effectively no schema description coverage, so the description must carry the semantics; it says nothing about the ID format or that a nested 'body' wrapper is expected. The schema field text 'Strategy ID to duplicate' does the work, leaving the description with no added value.

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 gives a specific verb ('Duplicate') and resource ('a code strategy'), which is clearly distinguishable from the sibling duplication tools for reaction-code and LLM-session strategies. It is clear but never explicitly names or contrasts with those siblings.

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 guidance on when to duplicate versus create a new strategy, no prerequisites (e.g. ownership/permissions), and no mention of alternatives. The only content is the operation name plus a REST route.

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