Duplicate Card

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden, but it only states the destination of the copy. It does not disclose what gets copied (tasks, labels, attachments, comments), whether the original is preserved, or permission/side-effect considerations.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical '(or the same list)' adds useful scope information. Every word earns its place.

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?

Although the output schema exists and the schema is simple, the description omits core behavioral context (copy depth, side effects) and leaves position undefined. An agent could invoke it, but would be guessing about the exact semantics of duplication.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description only semantically maps 'card' to id and 'another list' to listId. The position parameter is entirely unexplained, so the description only partially compensates for the missing parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Duplicate') and resource ('a card'), and names the destination ('another list or same list'), so the core operation is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate this from create_card or move_card, but 'duplicate' semantically implies copying an existing card.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose duplicate_card over create_card or move_card, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned. The only implied usage is the verb itself, which is not enough for an agent deciding among sibling card tools.

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