evite_duplicate_event

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

The description discloses crucial behavioral details beyond the annotations: confirm-gating, dry-run preview behavior, and that no event is created without confirm:true. It also states the return value (new draft event id). This provides the agent with a clear safety model, especially given the annotation only says readOnlyHint:false.

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 highly concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add the confirm-gating caveat. Every sentence adds distinct value and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 tool with only two simple parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the action, the return value, and the critical confirm behavior. It gives the agent everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and understand the dry-run flow.

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 input schema already documents both parameters, including a description for confirm that matches the tool description ('Must be true to proceed. Without this, the tool returns a preview'). The description reinforces the confirm behavior but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 begins with a specific verb 'Duplicate' and clearly identifies the resource ('an Evite event') and the result ('a fresh draft'). It also explicitly names the action ('Duplicate event') and notes the return value (new draft event id), distinguishing it from create/update tools.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: when duplicating an existing Evite event. It also provides important guidance on the confirm parameter, explaining that without confirm:true the tool only returns a dry-run preview. It does not explicitly name alternative tools like evite_create_event or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full marks.

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