document_duplicate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely non-obvious behavior: the copy receives the next available number, not the original's, which matters for downstream finalization. It is silent on permissions required, whether the source is untouched, what else is copied (content, attachments), and what state the original remains in.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the key fact (new number assigned) is placed immediately after the action statement. Every clause carries information.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action and the notable numbering side effect but omits the return value the agent needs — presumably the new document's identifier. That gap matters because the agent must act on the draft afterward, and nothing in structured data supplies it.

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 0% for the single `document_id` parameter, so the description must compensate — it only implies that you identify the source document to copy, adding no format, type, or reference guidance. The parameter name is largely self-explanatory, which keeps this from being worse than a 3.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+destination: "Copy a document into a new `draft`." That is far more informative than the name alone and makes it distinguishable from document_create in spirit, though it never names that sibling or states the contrast explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent must infer that this is the tool for replicating an existing document rather than creating one from scratch (document_create) or fetching it (document_get). The clause about finalizing without collision hints at the use case but gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance.

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