duplicate_content

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

Annotations only declare the generic non-read-only/non-destructive/non-idempotent profile; the description adds substantive traits: the copy lands in a new unpublished document with a fresh slug so it cannot collide with the original URL, children are NOT copied, and all locale working-version fields are carried over. These are exactly the behavioral details an agent needs and none are recoverable from the annotations.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the collision/children caveats and the follow-up workflow. No filler.

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 3-parameter, no-output-schema duplication tool, the description covers what is created, where it lands, naming, slug safety, child behavior, and the return value plus next action. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so the parameter baseline is 3; the description adds meaning by referring to per-locale working versions, clarifying what the locale parameter selects. It does not add syntax detail beyond the schema, but the locale clarification is a genuine increment.

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?

States a specific verb (copy/duplicate) plus the exact resource and result shape: a NEW unpublished document beside the original, same parent, named "<name> (copy)", with working-version fields. It also implicitly separates itself from copy_variant by scoping to a whole content item rather than a locale variant, and from create_content by copying existing content.

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?

Gives clear workflow context ("Returns the new item; edit it, then publish") and states the copy is unpublished, so an agent knows the next steps. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g. copy_variant for a single locale version) or the when-not to use this rather than create_content.

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