Create Recipes By Slug Duplicate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core duplication action but does not mention side effects, whether the original recipe is preserved, what is copied, permission requirements, or response behavior—gaps that matter for a mutating tool.

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 one short sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is concise, though the conciseness comes at the cost of missing parameter and behavior details.

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?

The tool has no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and a very brief description, so the agent must infer too much. The required slug is not explained, accept-language is ignored, and the behavioral consequences of duplication are undeclared; the presence of an output schema only partially mitigates these gaps.

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 compensate. It explains the 'name' parameter as the optional new custom name, but it does not explain the required 'slug' parameter or the 'accept-language' parameter, leaving a substantial semantic gap for an agent selecting and populating arguments.

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 ('duplicates') and resource ('a recipe'), and it clarifies the optional custom-name behavior. It is distinguishable from create/update/delete recipe siblings, though it does not explicitly say that the slug identifies the source recipe.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like creating a new recipe, updating an existing recipe, or deleting one. The intended use is only implied by the word 'duplicates,' with no conditions or exclusions stated.

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