duplicate_whiteboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that duplication occurs but does not disclose whether this modifies the original, what permissions are required, what the new whiteboard is named, or what the response contains. This is insufficient for a mutation-like operation without annotations.

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 with no filler or redundant details. Every word adds value, and the key action and object are front-loaded.

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 is very simple—one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects. The description and schema together cover the essential semantics of duplicating a whiteboard by ID. Minor gaps remain (e.g., return value, side effects on original), but for this low complexity, the description is largely complete.

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% and the single parameter 'id' is described as 'The whiteboard UUID to duplicate'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which aligns with the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 ('Duplicate') and the resource ('an existing whiteboard'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling whiteboard tools such as get_whiteboard and update_whiteboard by naming the unique duplicate operation.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or when to prefer list/get/create/update instead of duplicate.

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