workiva_duplicate_rich_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Duplicate') but does not explain what duplication entails (e.g., whether it creates a new independent resource, what is returned, or any side effects or permissions required).

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 extremely concise, with two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and parameter. There is no filler or redundant information, and every word earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and minimal parameter detail, the description is under-specified. It lacks context about the duplication behavior, return value, and any constraints or side effects. Even with an output schema, the description should offer more operational context for correct usage.

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 provides minimal parameter info (only a string type and title), so the description adds value by clarifying that 'rich_text_id' is a 'richText UUID'. This helps the agent understand the expected format, but the explanation is minimal and does not cover potential extra context like where to find the UUID.

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 specific verb ('Duplicate') and identifies the exact resource ('rich text resource'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools, as no other sibling tool has a duplicate action for rich text.

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 mention prerequisites, related tools, or scenarios where duplication is appropriate, leaving the agent without decision support.

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