write_dupe

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds genuinely non-redundant context: overwrites create backups, unknown addon data is preserved losslessly, and revision falls back to source document or server default. That materially softens and explains the destructive risk. It does not cover auth/permissions or failure behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the lossless guarantee, then defaults and overwrite safety. No filler and no repetition of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the risky behaviors an agent must know before calling. The only gap is the unexplained required 'name' parameter and any failure/permission conditions, which keeps it from a 5.

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 carry the load. It explains 'document' (lossless, preserves unknown addon data), 'revision' (defaults to source document or server default), and implies 'overwrite' (creates backups), but the required 'name' parameter is never addressed at all.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Save a lossless document') and ties it to the counterpart sibling read_dupe, making the read/write pairing obvious. It is clear what the tool does, though it never says what a 'dupe' actually is or where the document is written.

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?

Usage is implied strongly by 'returned by read_dupe', which tells the agent to use this only for documents that came from that sibling. There is no explicit when-not, no mention of overwrite vs create-new decision criteria, and no alternative tool named.

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