duplicate_widget

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

The description mentions deep-copying children and auto-renaming on conflicts, which are key behaviors beyond the tool name. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose other important details like whether the operation is destructive, required permissions, or what happens to the original widget. The presence of an output schema (not shown) might mitigate some gaps, but the description itself is incomplete.

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?

Extremely concise at two sentences, with no fluff. The main action is front-loaded, and every word adds value. Ideal structure for quick comprehension.

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 has 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (not shown), but the description omits critical details such as parameter explanations, prerequisites (e.g., widget must exist), and return value semantics. For a duplication tool with moderate complexity, this is insufficient for an agent to use correctly without additional context.

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% (none of the 4 parameters have descriptions in the schema). The tool description does not explain any parameters (new_name, widget_name, parent_widget_name, widget_blueprint_path), leaving their meaning and usage unclear. Given the low coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 (deep-copy/duplicate), the resource (widget), and includes a key distinguishing feature (including children and auto-renaming). It differentiates from sibling tools like duplicate_asset which duplicates assets, and other widget tools that add/remove widgets.

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 the tool is for duplicating widgets but does not explicitly guide when to use it over alternatives such as duplicate_asset or other widget manipulation tools. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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