duplicate_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It merely states 'duplicate' without explaining side effects such as whether the copy is placed in the same folder, whether metadata is preserved, or if attachments are included. No behavioral details are given.

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, clear, and concise sentence. It is well-structured and easy to read, with no unnecessary words. However, the extreme brevity, while structurally efficient, leaves out essential information, so it receives a slightly lower score than a perfect 5.

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 simplicity of the operation, the description is far from complete. It lacks context about the tool's place within the note management workflow, potential side effects, permissions required, or interaction with existing note properties. The user is left with only the bare action statement.

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 one required parameter 'path' but provides no description. The tool description does not clarify what 'path' refers to (e.g., full path, relative path, or ID) or any constraints. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description must compensate, but it adds no semantic value for the parameter.

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 clearly states the action 'duplicate' and the object 'note', which is a direct and identifiable purpose. It is sufficiently distinct from sibling tools that target folders or assets, though it does not elaborate on the exact nature of the duplication.

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. No mention of scenarios, limitations, or why one would choose duplicate_note over other note-related operations like copy, move, or create. The description offers no contextual usage instructions.

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