duplicate_event

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and delivers two genuinely useful behavioral facts: a repeating event is copied as a whole series, and the operation 'Can be undone'. It omits permissions/auth requirements and any statement about the resulting copy's identity beyond the new uid.

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 core action is front-loaded, then each clause maps to a parameter or behavior with no filler. The sentence is long and slightly run-on, but every clause earns its place.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the essential parameters and key behaviors (series copy, undoable). The main remaining gap is lack of explicit return-value and permission context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents calendar, to_calendar, start, end, and title with their defaults, and even explains the interaction that a new start alone preserves the event's length. The formats are delegated to update_event rather than restated, but uid itself is only referenced obliquely.

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+resource, 'Copy an event under a new uid', which immediately distinguishes it from a plain create or move by emphasizing a new uid is generated. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling alternatives (create_event, move_event) it could be confused with.

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 explains per-parameter defaults but gives no guidance on when to choose duplicate_event over create_event, move_event, or get_event. An agent must infer the selection criteria from the name alone.

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