notebook_duplicate_cell

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 only states the basic function (duplicates) but omits critical behavioral traits such as where the duplicate is placed (e.g., immediately after the original), error handling for invalid indices, whether cell outputs are copied, or if the operation is reversible.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core action and default behavior.

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 tool has 3 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or placement behavior. An agent cannot fully determine side effects or expected results without additional assumptions.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides for parameters like 'count' or 'cell_index'. No parameter-specific context is enriched by the description.

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 'Duplicates a cell multiple times (default: once)' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the action of copying an existing cell. It distinguishes from siblings like notebook_add_cell or notebook_edit_cell by specifying duplication, and mentions the default count.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., notebook_add_cell, notebook_bulk_add_cells). It does not state when not to use it or mention any preconditions or context where another tool would be preferred.

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