document_duplicate

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

Annotations already communicate readOnly=false and destructiveHint=trueated. The description adds the important scope that either current or historical saved revisions can be duplicated and that the result is an independent editable variation, but it does not disclose what destructive effects might occur or whether the original is preserved.

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 entire description is a single, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, and the additional phrase 'editable variation with independent identity' adds meaningful context without redundancy.

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 no output schema and no parameter-level explanation, an agent cannot determine what the call returns or what side effects follow, especially given the destructiveHint annotation. Required parameters are only discoverable through the schema, and there is no guidance about permissions, return values, or impact on the source document.

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%, and the description does not explicitly explain documentId, name, or revision. The phrase 'current or historical saved revision' only hints at the revision parameter, leaving the other two parameters underspecified.

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, 'Duplicate', a concrete resource, 'current or historical saved revision', and the intended outcome, 'editable variation with independent identity'. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like document_create, snapshot_create, and history_undo.

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 when to use the tool by mentioning current or historical saved revisions, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over document_create, snapshot_restore, or history_undo. No named alternatives or exclusion criteria are provided.

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