clone-post

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Duplicate' is vague and does not state whether a new post is created, what happens to the original, or what defaults are applied (e.g., status, title). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool, as it neither confirms safety nor explains side effects.

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 sentence that is succinct and to the point, wasting no words. However, it is under-specified for the complexity of the operation, leaving out crucial usage and transparency details that would make it genuinely helpful rather than merely brief.

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 tool has three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain return values, error behavior, or the full implications of cloning a post (e.g., does it copy metadata, media, categories?). This is inadequate for an agent to safely invoke the tool without additional context.

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?

The input schema already provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (postId, status, newTitle) with 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting, but the tool description itself contributes nothing beyond the word 'existing'.

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 an existing WordPress post' clearly states the action (duplicate) and the resource (a WordPress post), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like create-blog-post or update-post. However, it could be more explicit about whether it creates a new post or modifies the existing one, which is why it doesn't get a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create-blog-post or save-draft. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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