duplicate_one

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say what happens when 'name' is omitted (is the original name copied? suffixed?), whether the duplicate is independent of the source, what permissions are required, or what the response contains for a creation-style operation.

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 core statement and endpoint path are front-loaded and useful, but the long trailing keyword list is low-value padding that repeats variants like 'duplicate, create, add, new, make, write' and adds noise rather than information.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% documented parameters, the description should say more about the resulting duplicate and the effect on existing data. As written, an agent can construct the call but cannot predict its outcome.

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%, with two required params. The description explains the optional body.name ('a new custom name if given'), but says nothing about the slug parameter's format or that it identifies the source recipe to copy. Partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Duplicate recipe') and even gives the concrete endpoint POST /api/recipes/{slug}/duplicate, so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It is partially undermined by a keyword block that also advertises 'create recipe, add recipe, new recipe, make recipe', which blurs the line with recipe_crud_create_one.

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 use case is implied: copy an existing recipe (given by slug), optionally renaming it. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over recipe_crud_create_one, or any precondition such as the slug needing to already exist. The keyword line actively muddies alternative selection rather than clarifying it.

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