duplicate_procedure

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 merely states the action without explaining whether the duplication is deep (copies tasks, files), whether the name is auto-modified, or what the return value is. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 efficient sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and concise, though it is under-specified as a trade-off.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and side-effect potential, the description is inadequate. It does not explain required fields, behavior, or use context, leaving the agent without enough information to invoke it correctly.

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 the description does not compensate at all. The four parameters (id, name, company_id, description) are left undocumented in the description, offering no added meaning beyond the raw schema types.

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 'Duplicate an existing Procedure' uses a specific verb (duplicate) and resource (Procedure), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_procedure, update_procedure, and delete_procedure. It is not a tautology and accurately states the core function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_procedure or create_procedure_from_template. There are no contextual hints, exclusions, or preconditions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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