Api applied controls duplicate create

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

No annotation contradiction, but the description omits the only behavior that matters here: that it creates a duplicate of an existing applied control, that it is non-idempotent (repeated calls produce multiple copies), and that it is an open-world write. 'Viewed or edited' discloses nothing beyond the mutation hint already implied by readOnlyHint=false.

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?

It is short, but the brevity is empty rather than efficient: the single sentence is boilerplate that misdirects, so nothing in it earns its place.

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 non-idempotent, open-world mutation with no output schema and an undocumented parameter, the description should at minimum explain what gets duplicated and what 'id' refers to. It supplies neither, leaving an agent unable to call the tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds nothing about the single required 'id' parameter. Critically, it does not clarify whether 'id' is the source control to be duplicated or the identifier of a new record, which is the key ambiguity for a duplicate endpoint.

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 says the endpoint 'allows applied controls to be viewed or edited', which is generic CRUD boilerplate and does not match the tool's actual operation (duplicate an applied control, per the name and path). An agent reading it would conclude this is a read/update tool, not a duplication action.

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 when-to-use guidance at all, and the description does not distinguish this from the many nearby siblings such as applied_controls_create, applied_controls_update, applied_controls_retrieve, or applied_controls_merge_create. The one signal available (duplication) is not mentioned, so the agent has no basis to select this tool.

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