Duplicate template

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the copy is 'independent' and includes 'body and all', and it returns a new copy with its own id. It does not cover permissions or rate limits, so not a 5.

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?

Four labeled lines, each front-loading a distinct concern (purpose, exclusion, return, usage), with no filler or repetition.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description states the return value ('The new copy including its own id'), and the annotations carry the mutation/safety profile. An agent has everything needed to invoke this one-parameter duplication correctly.

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% for the single 'id' parameter, so the schema already documents the input fully. The description adds no format or syntax detail for 'id' beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Copy a template, body and all, into a new independent template') and explicitly names the sibling it is not for (plunk_update_template), so an agent can distinguish it without opening either schema.

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?

It gives an explicit exclusion ('Not for: Editing the original, which is plunk_update_template') and an explicit use case ('Building a variant of something that works, without risking the version already in use'), leaving nothing to inference.

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