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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context by disclosing that the copy runs asynchronously via CloneRecordJob and that only field values are copied — both affect how an agent must behave after calling.

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 zero waste; the parenthetical async detail is the only elaboration and it earns its place.

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 an async mutation with no output schema, the description leaves a real gap: it does not say what the call returns (job ID?), how completion is checked, or what happens on failure. Naming CloneRecordJob hints at machinery but does not close the loop for an agent.

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% and each ID parameter already points to its source tool (list_projects, list_forms/describe_project, get_records/search_records). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, 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 gives a specific verb (make a copy) and resource (record) with scope ('all its field values'), which inherently distinguishes it from create_record (blank) and duplicate_form (form). It stops short of naming a sibling or variant explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers you call this when you want a duplicate of an existing record. There is no stated precondition (record must exist), no exclusion ('use create_record for a blank record'), and no guidance on when a copy is preferable to add_record/update_record.

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