duplicate_operation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses no behavior: no side effects, no mutation semantics, no result or error conditions. It is a noun phrase with no behavioral content.

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 definition is extremely brief, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It contains no information that helps an agent call the tool correctly.

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 tool with nine undocumented parameters and no output schema or annotations, this description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine what inputs to provide, what happens on execution, or what response to expect.

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% and the description provides no explanation for any of the nine parameters. The tool name only hints at operationId/operationIds, but nothing clarifies feed, speed, dryRun, confirmed, outputPath, or toolId roles.

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 'Mastercam duplicate operation' merely restates the tool name and adds the product context. It lacks an explicit verb or action, so an agent cannot tell whether this duplicates an operation, checks duplication status, or removes duplicates.

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 siblings like create_operation, get_operation, or regenerate_toolpath. The description provides no context for selecting it.

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