duplicate_task

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behaviors. It mentions 'reading and re-creating' and lists duplicated fields, but omits whether comments, attachments, subtasks, or custom fields are copied, whether the operation is atomic, or what permissions are required. This lack of detail leaves the agent uncertain about side effects.

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 concise at two lines, front-loaded with the core action, and lists the duplicated fields efficiently. No extraneous text, though a bit more structure (e.g., separating action from details) could improve readability.

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?

Given no output schema and moderate complexity (5 params), the description explains the duplication process and fields, but lacks details on return behavior (e.g., whether the new task ID is returned) and implications for related entities (e.g., dependencies, time tracking). This leaves gaps for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 100% with all five parameters described. The description adds value by explaining the duplication logic (e.g., 'name' defaults to '<name> (copy)') and the fields involved. This extra context helps the agent understand parameter roles beyond the schema definitions.

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 states the tool's action: 'Duplicate a task into a target List' and lists the fields duplicated (name, description, status, priority, assignees, tags, dates). It uses a specific verb ('duplicate') and resource ('task'), and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like create_task or update_task.

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 implies usage for copying a task to a different list but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_task, move_bulk_tasks). No guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites.

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