duplicate_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It covers defaults for copying custom fields/attachments/maintenance, the prefix behavior, a non-obvious alias-field caveat, and return values (id and assetId). This is rich, useful context beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with the main action, then efficiently details defaults, caveats, and return values. Each sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition of schema field names.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides all essential context: default behavior, the alias pitfall, how to correct it, and what the tool returns. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must explain all params. It explains 'identifier' (assetId / alias / exact name), 'prefix' (prepended to name), and the three boolean copy flags with their defaults. Every parameter's semantics are effectively described.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Duplicate an existing item') and clarifies the identifier forms (assetId / alias field / exact name), immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_item or set_item. The example use case ('I bought a second one') further reinforces the intended purpose.

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 gives a clear use case via the example and explains when to use the tool (duplicating an item with copy behavior). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but with no annotations and a clear context, the guidance is sufficient for selection.

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