teamleader_projects_duplicate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Dupliceer een nextgen-project' and does not indicate whether this is a mutation, what side effects occur (e.g., copies all data, creates a new ID), or any permission requirements. This is a significant gap.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently worded, though minimal in content. It avoids verbosity and clearly states the core action.

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?

With one parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the behavior of the duplication process, such as whether a new project ID is returned, or how the duplicated project relates to the original. This lack of context makes it difficult for an agent to anticipate the tool's effect.

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?

The schema includes one parameter 'id' with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what 'id' refers to or how it should be provided. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description adds no value beyond the schema.

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 uses a clear verb 'Dupliceer' (duplicate) targeting a 'nextgen-project', which distinguishes it from sibling project operations like create, update, or delete. However, the term 'nextgen' is not explained, so the clarity is slightly reduced.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred contexts. The only clue is the verb 'dupliceer', which merely restates the tool's purpose.

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