duplicate_view

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are consistent but provide limited behavioral hints. The description adds that configuration is duplicated, but omits details like original view modification, error conditions (e.g., duplicate name), and output format. With no output schema, more transparency would benefit agent invocation.

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?

Single sentence of 14 words, efficiently front-loaded with core purpose. 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 5-parameter duplication tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. Missing constraints like name uniqueness, return value hint, and confirmation that the original view is unaltered. Moderate complexity warrants more contextual detail.

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 five parameters are described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides, satisfying the baseline for high 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 'Duplicate an existing view' with specific verb and resource, and explicitly lists what configuration is copied (filters, sorts, field visibility). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like duplicate_field, duplicate_records, and other view operations.

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 explicit guidance on when to use or alternatives is provided. Usage is implied by the name and description, but lacks exclusions or prerequisite notes common in high-scoring examples.

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