duplicate_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the main behavior: the tool copies an existing event and only changes the date, implying the original event is preserved. It also states the return value. It does not discuss permissions or error cases, but for a tool of this simplicity the transparency is adequate and not misleading.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a single explanatory sentence, then clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 tool with two mandatory parameters, a documented return value, and an output schema, the description is complete: it explains what it does, when to use it, the argument formats, and the expected return. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke this 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?

The input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for event_id and new_date. The description's Args section largely restates the schema (e.g., 'ID of the event to duplicate' and 'New date in YYYY-MM-DD format') without adding extra semantic detail. Thus a baseline 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?

Purpose is crystal clear: 'Duplicate an existing event to a new date' is a specific verb+resource combination. The second sentence 'Creates a copy of an event with all its properties but with a new date' further distinguishes this from create_event by emphasizing that it copies an existing event.

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?

Provides a clear use case: 'Useful for repeating workouts or events.' This tells the agent when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like create_event or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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