duplicateCollection

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, indicating this is a non-destructive write operation that may not be idempotent. The description adds context by mentioning an asynchronous task and a separate endpoint for status checking, which is valuable behavioral information not covered by annotations. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise instruction for status checking. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy or unnecessary details, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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's complexity (asynchronous operation with task tracking) and lack of output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, key behavioral aspect (status checking), and parameters are well-documented in the schema. However, it could benefit from mentioning expected outputs or error scenarios to be fully comprehensive.

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%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters (collectionId, workspace, suffix). The description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately documents parameters.

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 specific action ('Creates a duplicate') and resource ('collection in another workspace'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'createCollection' (which creates new collections) and 'getCollection' (which retrieves collections). The description precisely defines the tool's purpose without being tautological.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'in another workspace,' suggesting this tool is for copying collections across workspaces rather than within the same workspace. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'createCollection' or provide exclusions, such as whether duplication within the same workspace is possible.

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