duplicate_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action and that some card components can be kept selectively, but it does not mention what happens to the original card, whether due dates or other fields inherit defaults, or any side effects of duplication.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence communicates the core action and key feature with no filler. The 'etc.' is slightly vague but does not hurt the structural efficiency.

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?

With 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin for an agent to predict invocation results. It does not explain what happens when keep* flags are omitted, what the response contains, or the relationship between required parameters cardId and targetListId beyond their names.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds high-level meaning by naming 'attachments, checklists, labels, etc.' as the domains of the selective options, but it does not clarify individual parameter behavior beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 names a specific verb ('Duplique'), a specific resource ('une carte'), and the selective options that distinguish this tool from a plain create. It is clear, though it does not explicitly contrast it with create_trello_card or another sibling, so it loses the last point.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives like create_trello_card, move_trello_card, or copy-like operations. The only usage signal is the implied verb in the name and description, with no exclusions or alternative routing.

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