duplicate_record_template

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

Annotations indicate it is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds that it returns the new template ID, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or error states. With annotations present, this is adequate but not enriched.

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?

Two sentences: one describing the action and one stating the return value. Highly concise with no extraneous 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 tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is minimal. It covers the main purpose and return but omits details like what is duplicated (e.g., settings, cells) and prerequisites. Adequate but not thorough.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. Per guidelines, baseline score is 3.

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 action (duplicate), the resource (record template), and the scope (within same or different table), and specifies the return value (new template ID). This differentiates it from sibling tools like create_record_template and apply_record_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 provides clear context (duplicate in same or different table) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided, but the use case is evident.

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