duplicate_condition

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

Despite no annotations, the description thoroughly discloses behavioral traits: the inheritance propagation rule ('change a coverage rate on the original and every twin that has not touched that row gets it'), the label uniqueness requirement with rationale (first match wins, duplicate tags cause unreachable conditions), refusal of duplicate labels, and reversibility. This far exceeds a simple 'duplicates a condition'.

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 lengthy but every sentence provides valuable information, covering concept, examples, constraints, and alternatives. It is logically structured, starting with core purpose and layering detail, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

It addresses why the tool exists, the inheritance behavior, labeling pitfalls, what is not carried over ('No takeoffs come along'), and how to reverse the action. It also indicates the return value (condition_id) and is complemented by an output schema, making it complete for a complex tool.

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?

While the schema defines 'label' and 'condition' with brief descriptions, the description adds critical semantics: label becomes a tag suffix with a concrete example ('CPT-1' + 'Level 2' → 'CPT-1 – Level 2') and must be unique. It also clarifies that condition is the finish tag the twin follows, providing much deeper meaning than the schema alone.

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 opens with 'Twin a condition — the same finish measured somewhere else, with its own supporting materials,' providing a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like split_condition, which ends inheritance, and edit_condition, which modifies a condition.

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?

It gives a concrete scenario for when to use the tool ('One finish in two areas... same sheet goods over a slab and over a raised deck...') and explicitly names alternatives: 'Reversible with undo_last; use split_condition to end the inheritance permanently.' It also instructs the user to 'measure the new area against the returned condition_id,' guiding post-invocation steps.

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