duplicate_task

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

No annotations are provided (no readOnlyHint, no destructiveHint), so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Duplicate' implies a copy operation, but the description doesn't clarify whether the original is preserved, whether the original task is removed, or whether any fail-grace operations exist. With zero annotation coverage, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 a single concise sentence with zero wasted words. However, it's under-specified—brevity here borders on being too terse rather than effectively concise, though it does front-load the core action clearly.

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 and no output schema, the description should explain more—what gets created, what happens to the original, what fields are carried over, and required permissions. The description provides only the bare minimum and leaves significant ambiguity about the tool's actual behavior, especially given that 'duplicate' semantics can vary widely between implementations.

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 100%, so both parameters (task_id and list_id) are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it does not explain the relationship between task_id and list_id beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the documentation load.

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 'Duplicate a task into a list' clearly states the verb (duplicate), resource (task), and destination (list). However, it's minimal and doesn't distinguish itself well from siblings like move_task_to_list or create_task. The name itself already conveys most of the meaning, so the description adds little.

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. There's no mention of behavior nuances such as whether subtasks, checklists, or dependencies are duplicated, or whether this is preferred over create_task or move_task_to_list. The sibling tool 'move_task_to_list' is a natural alternative but is never referenced.

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