Duplicate items

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive, but the description carries the burden of explaining the operation's actual behavior. It does not disclose that originals remain intact, that each call creates new copies, or how project duplication handles subtasks.

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 short sentences with no filler. The template-use note earns its place by giving the primary practical motivation for duplicating a project.

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 core operation and a use case are clear, and an output schema exists. Still, for a tool with multiple modes (task vs project), optional renaming, and subtask behavior, the description leaves important semantics like what happens to the original and how project subtasks are handled implicit.

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 descriptions already cover 'ids' and 'include_subtasks', but the description adds nothing about 'new_name' beyond its bare name. Since schema coverage is 67%, not high enough to excuse the lack of parameter-level help, and 'new_name' remains ambiguous.

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 identifies the action as duplicating tasks or projects, which is a specific verb+resource combo and distinguishes it from creation or editing siblings. It doesn't name sibling alternatives, but the scope is plain enough.

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 phrase 'Duplicating a project is useful as a template' gives an implied use case, which is helpful. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer duplicate_items over add_items or other creation tools, nor any exclusion criteria.

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