duplicate_workflow

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating a non-destructive write. The description adds only that the source must be an existing workflow (already implied by the parameter schema) and does not explain copy semantics, such as what gets duplicated or whether the original is unchanged.

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, making it concise. However, it is under-specified and largely restates the tool name, lacking additional context despite being appropriately short.

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?

While the schema covers parameters and annotations provide basic safety hints, the description omits important operational context for a mutation tool: no mention of the return value, potential errors, or how the duplicate is handled (e.g., default name behavior). The overall picture is incomplete for an AI agent.

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 fully documents both parameters ('id' and 'name') with descriptions, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Duplicate') and resource ('an existing workflow'), clearly indicating the action. However, it does not differentiate from related tools like create_workflow or export_workflow, which could also be used in copying contexts.

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 provided on when to use this tool instead of create_workflow, import_workflow, or export_workflow. The description does not mention any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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