gorelo_duplicate_document

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which is already the baseline for a create-style operation. The description adds nothing about what a duplicate carries over (versions, related items, comments, attachments), whether the copy is fully independent, or what happens if the source doesn't exist — behaviorally important for a duplication 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key outcome (a new document) is stated immediately. It is under-specified rather than padded, so conciseness itself is fine.

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 duplication mutation with a nested body object and no output schema, the description leaves the important questions unanswered: what the copy includes, whether the duplication is idempotent/repeatable, and what identifying information the response returns for the new document. The only detail an agent gets — where the title comes from — lives in the schema, not the description.

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 coverage is 100%: the schema documents documentId ("Document to duplicate") and the nested body.Title with its 200-char limit and " clone" default behavior. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies since the schema does all the work.

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+resource ("Makes a copy of a document") and clarifies the result is a new document, so it's clearly distinct from gorelo_get_document or gorelo_update_document. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling gorelo_create_document, which is the main confusion risk for a duplicate operation.

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 duplicate versus calling gorelo_create_document from scratch, no prerequisites (permissions needed on the source document), and no exclusions. The agent must infer the selection criteria from the tool name alone.

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