conn_duplicate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without detailing side effects, prerequisites (e.g., the source connection must exist), constraints (e.g., name uniqueness), or what happens on error. For a mutating operation, this is insufficient transparency.

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, clean sentence with no redundant wording. It front-loads the action and target, effectively communicating the tool's purpose with zero waste.

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 low complexity of a duplicate operation and full parameter documentation, the description is adequate for a basic tool. However, it lacks details about error cases (e.g., missing source, duplicate new name) or any additional context (like whether it overwrites or returns anything), which would make it more complete for an agent to reason about edge cases.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters 'name' and 'new_name' described. The description adds minimal extra meaning by clarifying that 'new_name' is for the copy, which is already implicit in the schema. This meets the baseline for high coverage but does not exceed it.

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 'Duplica una conexion existente con un nuevo nombre' clearly states the action (duplicate), the resource (connection), and the result (with a new name). It distinguishes from sibling tools like conn_create (creates new from scratch) and conn_rename (renames existing) by indicating it duplicates an existing connection.

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 used when you want to copy an existing connection with a new name, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like conn_create or conn_rename. There is no 'when not to use' or alternative mention, so it falls into implied usage without clear guidance.

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