duplicate_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the copy is independent and duplicates all configuration. However, it omits details about permissions, side effects, error handling, or what happens if the optional new_name is omitted.

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 well-structured with a concise main statement followed by a bulleted list of use cases. All sentences add value, though the list could be trimmed without losing core meaning. No fluff or redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is sufficient to understand the core operation: what is duplicated and that the copy is independent. It omits parameter semantics and error conditions, but those are less critical given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema.

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 never mentions the new_name parameter. It only implicitly references agent_id as the source agent. The optional naming behavior is entirely undocumented, leaving a gap in parameter understanding.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create an exact copy of an agent with all its configuration.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_agent, update_agent, and delete_agent by emphasizing duplication and independence.

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 provides a clear 'Great for' list with concrete scenarios (A/B testing, language variants, branching, staging/dependencies). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the use cases give sufficient context for when this tool is appropriate.

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