duplicate_mission

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates the tool creates a copy, which implies a write operation, but does not disclose if it requires special permissions or if there are limits on mission size or depth. The description is adequate but not rich.

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, clear and to the point. It could be slightly more structured but is generally efficient.

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?

Given the single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a usage hint. However, for a duplication tool, details on what exactly is copied (e.g., waypoint order, files, attachments) would improve completeness.

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 100% with a clear description for the one parameter (mission_id). The description does not add further meaning beyond the schema, such as format constraints or example values. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 duplicates an existing mission including all waypoints and settings, and explicitly mentions that the new mission gets a unique ID. This distinguishes it from other mission-related tools like list_missions or update_mission.

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 advises using list_missions to find mission IDs, which is helpful. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or if there are any prerequisites (e.g., permissions, mission ownership).

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