duplicate_template

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the HTTP method and path, but does not state that a new copy is created while the original remains unchanged, whether the operation is idempotent, or what is returned. For a mutating operation this is thin.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes the action and the endpoint, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 simple 3-parameter operation with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves out behavioral details and usage context. An agent can likely call it correctly, but it lacks the safeguards a well-rounded definition would provide.

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%, so the schema fully documents id, name, and alias. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the endpoint's :id placeholder, which is already represented in 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 states a specific verb ('Duplicate') and resource ('a template'), and the endpoint POST /templates/:id/duplicate reinforces the action. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_template, get_template, update_template, and delete_template.

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 description makes the intended use evident from the verb, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to choose duplication over create_template or update_template. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided beyond the inherent meaning of the action.

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