asset_duplicate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is partly covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the copy is independent, begins a new version root, and carries duplicate provenance — meaningful lineage behavior. It still omits whether the original is untouched, what is copied, and what identifier the caller receives back.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the verb and the key semantic payload ('independent editable copy') with no filler. It is efficient, though the phrase 'retaining duplicate provenance' is slightly abstract at first read.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile and there is no output schema, so the description need not explain return values. But for a mutation tool with two undocumented parameters, the definition leaves the caller unsure what assetIdNew controls and what a 'version root' means operationally, which is a real gap for correct invocation.

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 carries the burden and does not meet it. It never mentions assetId or assetIdNew; the 'copy' wording lets an agent guess assetId is the source, but assetIdNew (presumably the new asset's name or id) is entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 states a specific verb (create) and a precise resulting object: an independent editable copy that starts a new version root while retaining duplicate provenance. This implicitly distinguishes it from version-creation siblings, but no sibling is named, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is implied by 'independent editable copy that starts a new version root' — an agent can infer this is for branching away from an asset's lineage rather than adding a version. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion against asset_version_create, and no prerequisites such as permissions.

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