duplicate_widget

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

The description adds context beyond annotations: 'Two-call confirmation' and 'Re-reads to confirm' reveal the tool's verification pattern. It also states non-destructive behavior ('clone gets a new id'), consistent with destructiveHint=false. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short (3 sentences) and front-loads the key purpose. However, it mixes behavioral notes and could benefit from structured bullet points. It is efficient but slightly informal.

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 the 4 parameters with zero schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the 'confirmation' parameter or the two-call flow in detail. An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but parameter semantics are lacking.

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 no explanation for any parameter (site_id, page_id, widget_id, confirmation). It does not clarify the role of 'confirmation' or how the parameters relate to the duplication logic. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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', the resource 'widget', and key actions: 'in place (right after the original)', 'clone gets a new id', 're-reads to confirm', and 'two-call confirmation'. This distinguishes it from siblings like delete_widget, move_widget, etc.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like duplicate_elementor_page exist but no contrast is given. The description implies its use for duplication but lacks context for selection.

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