Duplicate a post

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

The description explains the behavior of creating a new WIP post with the same content. Since annotations only provide destructiveHint: true (which might be misleading for a creation action), the description adds clarity about the non-destructive nature to the source. It does not cover permissions or error cases, but it is adequate.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the core action and then explaining the optional parameter. No redundant information, every sentence serves a purpose.

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 3 parameters (one required) and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior and optional targeting. It lacks mention of return format or error conditions, but is complete for typical 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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds minimal extra context beyond the schema, reinforcing the targetTeamName usage. Given high schema coverage, the description is sufficient but does not significantly enhance understanding.

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 it duplicates a post, creating a new WIP post with the same name and body_md. It specifies the default behavior (same team) and the optional targetTeamName parameter, distinguishing it from similar tools like esa_create_post.

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 explains when to use the tool (to duplicate a post) and how to use the targetTeamName to duplicate to a different team. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it, e.g., versus creating a new post manually.

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