Duplicate a credential

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write and non-destructive nature is known. The description adds behavioral context: it creates a new credential, leaving the original untouched, and allows overriding fields. It aligns with annotations and adds the 'untouched' guarantee, providing value beyond the structured data.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action ('Duplicate a credential') and provides essential detail in the second sentence. Every word earns its place, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

Given six parameters and no output schema, the description is sparse. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., the new credential object or an ID), nor any permission requirements or potential errors. The operation is simple, but for a complete picture an agent would benefit from at least a hint about the return value. This gap brings completeness down.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'optionally overriding fields (e.g. password)' but only gives password as an example. It does not explain key, name, username, or keyPassword, which remain ambiguous. An agent cannot fully understand which fields are overridable or what those parameters mean, making parameter semantics weak.

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 clearly states the verb 'Duplicate' and the resource 'credential', and elaborates that it 'Creates a new credential from an existing one', with optional field overrides. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_new_credential (creates from scratch) and update_credential (modifies existing). The scope is precise.

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?

The description implies when to use (to copy an existing credential with possible overrides) and explicitly notes 'leaving the original credential untouched', which differentiates from update. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use (e.g., when you need a fresh credential, use create_new_credential). It provides clear context but no explicit exclusions.

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