Api presets duplicate create

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds nothing: it does not say the source preset is unchanged, whether the copy gets a new ref_id/name, or whether related objects are cloned.

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 identifier string with no sentence structure or front-loaded information. This is under-specification rather than conciseness; there is nothing to trim and nothing to learn.

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?

A non-idempotent create/duplicate mutation with an undocumented parameter, no output schema, and a huge sibling set including several other preset create variants. The description provides none of the context needed to call or distinguish it.

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 single parameter is only named 'id' with no description. The description does not clarify whether this id refers to the preset being duplicated or the target object, which is exactly the ambiguity the schema leaves open.

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 literally the tool name restated ('api_presets_duplicate_create'), a tautology. The name implies duplicating a preset, but the description never states the verb-resource relationship in prose or what 'presets' are, so the agent must infer entirely from naming convention.

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 guidance on when to duplicate versus using ciso_assistant_api_presets_create, _apply_create, _create_blank_create, or _save_draft_partial_update, all close siblings. No prerequisites, no when-not-to-use conditions.

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