Copy a scenario

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds valuable behavioral context: the copy recomputes outputs from current fee tables, counts against the saved-scenario limit, and requires PROFITLEE_API_TOKEN. This fully discloses the tool's side effects and constraints.

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 four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, behavioral effect, naming rule, limit and auth requirement. No fluff or redundancy; front-loaded with the core action.

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 2 parameters and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, side effects, naming, limits, auth, and the server-side recomputation behavior. The sibling context further clarifies its role among other scenario operations.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters thoroughly with descriptions (id and name, including default behavior). The description adds no new parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool duplicates an existing Profitlee scenario into a new one. The verb 'Duplicate' and resource 'Profitlee scenario' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like save_scenario (create) and update_scenario (modify).

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 implies when to use the tool (duplicating an existing scenario) and provides important context (server-side recompute, current fee tables, default naming, saved-scenario limit, token requirement). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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