duplicate_asset

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it fails to mention whether the duplication creates a copy, modifies the original, handles dependencies, or requires permissions. It is critically under-informative 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 a single short sentence, which is concise but severely under-specified for a tool with three required parameters and no additional context. It sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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?

Given the complexity of the asset ecosystem and the presence of many sibling tools, this description is inadequate. It does not explain the asset type, the operation's effect, or the output schema, leaving the agent without critical information.

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 should compensate, but it adds no meaning beyond parameter names. The parameters (source_path, dest_path, dest_name) are not explained in terms of format, constraints, or behavior.

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 action ('Duplicate') and the resource ('asset') with a destination ('to a new location'). It conveys the core purpose but does not distinguish from sibling tools like duplicate_data_table_row or duplicate_widget, lacking specificity on asset type.

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 versus alternatives (e.g., rename_asset, duplicate_data_table_row). There are no prerequisites, context, or exclusions mentioned.

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