icu_duplicate_events

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

Description notes that the tool reuses existing event payloads, adding context beyond annotations. Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint false) but non-destructive (destructiveHint false). Minor gap: no mention of potential limits or side effects, but sufficient for typical use.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value, achieving maximum conciseness.

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?

For a simple duplication tool with good annotations and output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and differentiation completely. No missing information for effective use.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all four parameters. Description does not add new parameter semantics beyond schema explanations. A score of 3 reflects that the schema already handles parameter meaning adequately.

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?

Description clearly states the tool copies events forward in time using verb 'COPY' and specifies the resource ('existing events'). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools icu_create_event and icu_bulk_create_events, meeting the highest standard.

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?

Description provides explicit usage scenarios with examples ('repeat this workout for the next 4 weeks') and clarifies when NOT to use it (when building new events from scratch), offering clear alternative tools.

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