duplicate_assessment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the operation creates a new draft and copies settings and tasks, which implies the original is unchanged. However, it doesn't mention permissions, reversibility, error conditions, or any further side effects. It adds useful context but is minimal.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core action and outcome, making it easy to parse and remember.

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 basic tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and outcome but misses parameter semantics and usage guidance relative to siblings. It does not fully explain what the tool does beyond the clone action, leaving some ambiguity.

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% and the description does not explain what 'slug' or 'title' mean. It can be inferred that slug identifies the source assessment and title is for the new draft, but this is not explicit. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Clone') with a clear resource ('assessment') and specifies the scoped content ('settings + tasks') and the result ('a new draft'). This clearly distinguishes it from create/update/delete assessment tools, which either start fresh or modify existing ones.

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 when to use this tool (when you want to duplicate an existing assessment into a draft) but does not explicitly mention alternatives like create_assessment or update_assessment, nor does it state when not to use it. The context is clear, but exclusions and explicit routing are absent.

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