mark_duplicate

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 behavioral disclosure. It states the primary effect (linking the duplicate to the original) but fails to disclose other important behaviors such as whether the action is reversible, whether permissions are required, or whether the original post is also affected. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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 two short sentences that front-load the core action and its result. Every word contributes value, with no filler or redundant information.

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 tool is relatively simple with low complexity, and the schema fully documents parameters. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves behavioral gaps (reversibility, permissions, side effects) that are relevant for a mutation tool. It is adequate for the basic purpose but not fully complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions duplicate and original concepts that are already defined in the parameter descriptions. The optional 'message' parameter is not referenced in the description.

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 tool's function: 'Mark a Piazza post as a duplicate of another post.' The verb 'mark' and resource 'duplicate' are specific and the action is distinct from sibling tools like mark_resolved or mark_answer_good. It also adds the useful detail that the duplicate will link to the original.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool (when a post is a duplicate of another), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. There is no exclusionary guidance, but the context is clear enough that the usage scenario is inferable.

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