duplicate_record_template

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that the tool returns the new template ID, which is useful. However, it does not elaborate on other behavioral traits, such as whether all template settings (e.g., cells, visible columns) are copied. Given annotation presence, score is adequate.

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 concise sentences: one declares the purpose and scope, the other states return value. No unnecessary words or repetition. Front-loaded with essential 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 duplication tool with no output schema, the description provides the return type (new template ID) and key constraint (same or different table). It covers the core operation. However, it could briefly mention what aspects of the template are duplicated (e.g., all cells and settings) to be fully self-contained. Still, it is largely complete.

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?

All 5 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the schema already documents their semantics. The description does not add new meaning beyond restating schema info (e.g., target table can be same or different). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the verb 'Duplicate' on the resource 'record template', specifying it can be within the same or a different table. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_record_template' (create from scratch) and 'apply_record_template' (apply rather than copy).

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 usage through context ('within the same or a different table') but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like 'create_record_template' or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or preconditions are mentioned.

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