Duplicate a post

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

Annotations only mark it as a non-read-only, non-destructive write; the description adds the meaningful context that the result is a WIP post copying name and body_md and that the source team is the default destination. It omits auth/permission needs but exceeds what the annotations convey.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste: the core duplication behavior is front-loaded, followed immediately by the team-selection option. Nothing needs restructuring.

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 mutation tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the essential behavior (what is created, where, and in what state). It could add a note on prerequisites (e.g., valid source post/team), but is otherwise 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 description coverage is 100% and already documents teamName, postNumber, and targetTeamName including the source-team default. The description restates the targetTeamName default rather than adding syntax or format detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Duplicates a post') and goes further to define the output ('a new WIP post with the same name and body_md'). The WIP/copy semantics clearly separate it from esa_create_post, which starts from scratch.

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?

Explains the default behavior (duplicate into the source team) and the condition that changes it (specify targetTeamName). No explicit when-not or alternative tool is named, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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