document.duplicate

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

With no annotations, the description discloses two useful behaviors: duplication happens in place with a slight offset, and no clipboard state is touched. It omits mutation details such as whether new shape IDs are created, how slide_index affects placement, required permissions, and what is returned.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key differentiator. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and clipboard side-effect but not the full contract. It leaves slide_index semantics, requiredness of shape_ids, and post-duplication state insufficiently specified.

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 50%: x_offset/y_offset already document defaults, and the description only hints at a 'slight offset' without adding range or format. It does clarify that shape_ids are the IDs to duplicate, but slide_index remains undocumented in both schema and description, so compensation for the coverage gap is only partial.

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 (Duplicate) and resource (given shape ids), plus scope (in place with slight offset). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from copy+paste by noting the absence of a clipboard side-effect.

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?

Explicitly positions this tool against copy+paste for the no-clipboard-side-effect case, giving a clear condition for choosing it. It stops short of naming when to prefer duplicate_slide or other alternatives, so it is not a full when/when-not matrix.

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