Duplicate Entry

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

The description discloses that the copy receives a new document and numeric ID, and that destination tags are explicit (not automatically inherited). This adds valuable behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it does not explain the 'confirm' parameter or other potential side effects, so it is not fully transparent.

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 only two sentences and is front-loaded with 'Copy an entry.' Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

With no output schema and minimal annotations, the description is incomplete for a 5-parameter tool. It omits the meaning of the 'confirm' parameter and the behavior when target_tag_ids is null. The core copy action is clear, but the overall context is insufficient for an agent to use the tool safely and effectively.

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 schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only addresses target_tag_ids ('destination tags are explicit'); it does not explain source_bundle_id, target_bundle_id, entry_id, or confirm semantics. With no other guidance, the description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 begins with 'Copy an entry,' a specific verb-resource pair. It also clarifies that the copy gets a new document and numeric ID, which distinguishes this tool from a move or update. This is clear and unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like bundled_create_entry or bundled_move_entry. However, 'Copy an entry' clearly implies duplication use cases, and the mention of new IDs provides context. There are no exclusions or alternative references, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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