duplicate_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it under-delivers. It does not say where the copy is placed (same parent/sibling), whether the original is untouched, what the copy is named by default, or whether the new instance becomes selected — all relevant for a mutation tool in a Studio-editing context.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity sits at the edge of under-specification given the absence of annotations and schema documentation.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, this single sentence leaves too much unspecified — placement of the clone, default naming, and path format are all missing.

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 clarifies that newName is optional ("optionally with a new name") but says nothing about what form 'path' takes (full path vs. instance name) or what happens to naming when newName is omitted.

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?

"Duplicate (clone) an instance" states a specific verb and resource, and the parenthetical makes the intent unambiguous. It does not, however, contrast itself with create_instance or get_instance, so the agent must infer the distinction.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The phrase "optionally with a new name" faintly implies the clone can be renamed inline instead of calling rename_instance, but that routing is left to inference rather than stated.

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