duplicate_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Mutating', signaling a write operation, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether versions are copied, if the original template is unaffected, or if there are idempotency guarantees). No permissions or error conditions are mentioned.

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 sentence of 14 words, efficiently conveying the core purpose. It is front-loaded with 'Mutating:' to immediately indicate the tool's side effect. Every word serves a purpose with no 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?

Given the tool's complexity (copying a template), the description omits critical context: What is the return value? Does it return the new template ID? Are there constraints on name length or uniqueness? No output schema exists to fill this gap. The agent would need to infer behavior from invocation.

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?

Both parameters (name, template_id) have clear descriptions in the input schema, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema's documentation. 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 clearly states the action: 'copy a dynamic template into a new dynamic template'. It specifies the resource (dynamic template) and verb (copy), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_template (create from scratch) or update_template_name (rename). The mention of 'SendGrid native duplication' adds specificity.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as duplicate_design or duplicate_single_send. The description does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or context for choosing this tool over other duplication methods. The agent receives no help in disambiguation.

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