Duplicate workflow

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (non-destructive write, not idempotent). The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral facts: version prerequisite (Plunk v0.11+), and that the copy lands disabled with no execution state so it cannot start sending by accident. That last detail is exactly the kind of state default an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

Bold-labeled sections (Purpose / Not for / Returns / Use when / Note) with the core purpose front-loaded and no redundant prose. Every line carries information the agent needs.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description covers the return value ('the new copy including its own id'), the safety default, and the version requirement. Nothing needed to invoke a single-parameter duplication tool 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?

Only one parameter (id) and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it as 'Workflow UUID'. The description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies; there is simply no room for added value here.

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+resource ('copy a workflow with all its steps and transitions into a new one') and explicitly names the adjacent tool it is not (plunk_update_workflow). An agent can distinguish it from plunk_create_workflow and plunk_update_workflow without opening any 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?

Provides both a 'Not for' exclusion pointing at plunk_update_workflow and a 'Use when' condition ('reworking an automation without disturbing the one currently running'). This is the exact when/when-not/alternative structure that makes selection unambiguous.

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