bulk_duplicate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the most dangerous default: dry_run=true, plus the preview-then-apply workflow. It says nothing about whether copies are drafts, how numeration is assigned, what happens on partial failure, or any cap on how many documents can be copied in one call — all material for a bulk mutation.

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?

Two sentences, zero padding: the action and example come first, the dry_run safety default second. Everything is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 7-parameter, nested-object bulk mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential safety loop but omits how many documents a single call can handle, what the preview actually returns, and how overrides interact with per-document differences. Adequate to start, not enough to call confidently at scale.

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 coverage is already 86%, so the schema does most of the work, but the description still adds operational meaning: the dry_run default is called out as a behavior, not just a type, and the q-filter example mirrors the realistic filter syntax. It does not explain the q vs ids vs type relationship or that overrides apply uniformly to every copy.

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?

States a specific verb and scope — 'Copia molti documenti in una volta' — with a concrete example (all September invoices dated today), which clearly marks it as the batch counterpart to the single-document tools. It never names the sibling duplicate_document, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Gives real usage guidance: the scenario (bulk copy of a filtered set) and a mandatory two-step procedure (preview with dry_run=true, then re-run with false). What is missing is the exclusion — nothing tells the agent to prefer duplicate_document for a single document, even though that sibling exists.

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