duplicate_mission

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility. It states the operation is a copy (write) and mentions the new mission gets a unique ID, implying the original is unchanged. However, it omits side effects, permission requirements, or rate limits, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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 two sentences, each serving a clear purpose: first states the action and scope, second provides a practical usage hint. No redundant words or information, achieving maximal conciseness.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core operation, specific inclusions, and a result detail (unique ID). It lacks explicit return value expectations but is sufficient for basic use, missing only minor contextual depth.

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?

The input schema already fully describes the single parameter (mission_id as UUID) with 100% coverage. The description adds a usage hint ('Use list_missions to find mission IDs') but does not contribute additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score.

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 tool creates a 'full copy' of a mission, specifying what is included (waypoints and settings) and the result (unique ID). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_mission (new from scratch) and share_mission (sharing, not copying).

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 description provides a direct usage hint ('Use list_missions to find mission IDs') which guides the agent on prerequisite action. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives, missing full guidance for differentiation.

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