duplicate_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states a mutation operation ('Duplicates') but offers no details on side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or response behavior. This is insufficient for a tool with no 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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose with no extraneous words. It is appropriately sized for a simple operation, though it could include a bit more context without losing 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?

Given the low complexity (3 required params, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose. However, it lacks mention of return value, prerequisites (e.g., existing workflow ID), or behavioral hints. With no output schema, additional context on the result would improve completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions for workflow_id, name, and content_types (e.g., constraints, format, or usage hints).

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 the verb 'Duplicates' and specifies the resource 'workflow', clearly indicating the action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_workflow, delete_workflow, or update_workflow by focusing on duplication of an existing workflow.

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 duplicating workflows but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., create_workflow for new workflows) or prerequisites. The context is implicit, lacking explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements.

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