Duplicate an asset into a new draft

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

The description adds some behavioral context beyond annotations: a new id and new embed URLs are created. However, it doesn't disclose whether the original asset is modified, whether the duplicate is unpublished until explicitly published, or any permission requirements. The annotation openWorldHint=false doesn't contradict this, but leaves room for more transparency.

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 short and front-loaded with the most important behavioral fact (new id, new embed URLs) followed by the primary use case. No filler exists, though the terse style contributes to the parameter-semantics gap. It earns its sentences.

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?

With three parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description leaves significant gaps. It doesn't explain which asset is duplicated, the role of brand/title, or the lifecycle of the new draft. An agent would need to rely on the tool schema or external knowledge to call this correctly, making the description incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the three parameters id, brand, and title. It only hints that 'rebranding' relates to brand/title; it never states that id is the source asset id, what brand does, or what title controls. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently populate parameters without extra inference.

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 title and description together make it clear this duplicates an asset into a new draft. The description 'New id, new embed URLs' and 'rebranding a chart' indicate the duplication outcome and intent, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling or say 'duplicate' in the description, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 gives a clear use case: 'useful for rebranding a chart for another audience.' This tells an agent when to reach for this tool, but it doesn't mention when not to use it or propose alternatives like create_asset or update_asset, so no exclusions are provided.

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