asana_duplicate_task

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

The description discloses that the tool 'Returns an async job', a behavioral trait not captured by the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It also clarifies the role of the 'include' parameter. This adds meaningful context beyond the structured 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 compact and front-loaded. It consists of a clear purpose statement, a brief elaboration of the 'include' parameter, and a note about the async return. Each sentence contributes useful information with no fluff.

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?

The description provides the essential information for calling the tool: the action, the key parameter, and the async return behavior. It could mention how to track the async job (e.g., via asana_get_job), but this is inferable from the sibling list. Annotations cover safety and schema covers parameters, so the overall package is nearly complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds an example for 'include' and clarifies its format, but this largely reinforces schema info rather than providing substantial new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the operation as 'Duplicate a task' and adds 'template instantiation' for context, making the verb and resource explicit. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from related siblings like asana_instantiate_task_template or asana_create_task, so it stops short of full sibling distinction.

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 purpose 'Duplicate a task' implies when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative to choose (e.g., asana_create_task for new tasks, asana_instantiate_task_template for template-based creation). Usage context is implied rather than articulated.

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