Api organisation objectives duplicate create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds nothing beyond them. It does not say what gets copied (fields, related links, status), whether the duplicate starts as a draft, or whether the operation is safe to retry — notable gaps given idempotentHint=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?

The single line is short, but that brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication. There is no front-loaded statement of what operation is performed or what it returns.

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?

This is a non-idempotent, non-read-only creation tool with no output schema and an undocumented parameter; the description supplies none of the context needed to invoke it correctly. Sibling tools in this API namespace carry richer descriptions, so the omission is avoidable.

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?

There is one required parameter, 'id', with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. An agent must guess whether the id refers to the source objective, the target, or a folder, and whether it is an internal PK or a ref_id.

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 is a verbatim restatement of the tool name and title ('api_organisation_objectives_duplicate_create'), which is the definition of tautology under this rubric. An agent can infer duplication of an organisation objective, but only from parsing the identifier itself, not from any explanatory sentence. Nothing distinguishes it from the sibling ciso_assistant_api_organisation_objectives_create.

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 whatsoever on when to use this instead of organisation_objectives_create, organisation_objectives_retrieve, or the batch_action sibling. No preconditions, no exclusions, no alternatives are named.

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