Duplicate a collection

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'creates' is consistent. It adds valuable behavioral context by indicating the operation is asynchronous (via the status endpoint) and not destructive, going beyond the basic write-operation hint. It does not detail permissions or potential side effects, but the async nature is key context.

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 concise sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second provides an essential follow-up action (checking status). No redundant words, and the critical information is front-loaded. Every sentence 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 tool with no output schema, the description points to the status endpoint, implicitly suggesting the response contains a task ID, but does not explicitly define the return value. It covers the main flow (kick off duplication, then poll status) but could benefit from stating the response format or task ID. Given the tool's moderate complexity and lack of nested objects, this is largely sufficient.

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?

The input schema fully describes all three parameters (suffix, workspace, collectionId) with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add additional meaning or examples beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but contributes no extra semantics.

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 action: 'Creates a duplicate of the given collection in another workspace.' It specifies the verb (creates), the resource (collection duplicate), and the destination (another workspace), distinguishing it from other collection-related tools like putCollection or getCollection.

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 a follow-up instruction for checking task status but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. It implies use for duplication but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or what alternatives exist, such as copying within the same workspace.

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