duplicate_folder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the operation. It does not clarify whether contents are copied recursively, where the duplicate is placed, what happens on naming conflicts, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It lacks the substance needed to serve as a complete tool definition.

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 two parameters and no annotations, the description is missing critical details about subpath semantics and the resulting duplicate location. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the invocation ambiguity.

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%, so the description must explain both the folder and subpath parameters. It does not mention subpath at all and adds no meaning beyond the parameter names and default value.

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 states a specific verb ('dupliquer') and resource ('un dossier'), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like duplicate_note and duplicate_asset. It tells the agent exactly what operation the tool performs.

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 given about when to use duplicate_folder versus create_folder, rename_folder, or delete_folder, nor about prerequisites. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and the minimal one-line description.

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