duplicate_asset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only says 'Duplicates an asset' and does not disclose whether the duplicate is created in the same directory, how the new filename is generated, whether overwriting can occur, or any other 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 with no filler or unnecessary detail. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, which is appropriate for a simple, single-purpose tool.

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?

The presence of an output schema covers return values, but behavioral and contextual expectations are largely missing. With no annotations and no guidance on duplicate naming, destination, or failure conditions, the description is not complete enough for an agent to confidently invoke the tool in edge cases.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the 'path' parameter at all. Although 'path' is a single, fairly obvious parameter, the description adds no semantic meaning beyond what the schema's type and title already provide.

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 uses a specific verb ('Duplique') and resource ('asset'), making it clear that the tool duplicates an asset. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like duplicate_note or duplicate_folder, but the asset resource is enough to avoid major ambiguity.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as duplicate_note or duplicate_folder. The description does not mention prerequisites, whether the asset must exist, or what distinguishes this duplication operation from other asset-related tools.

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