Duplicate task

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

Annotations already indicate the operation is neither read-only nor destructive. The description adds useful detail about which fields are copied (name, note, dates, flags, tags) and the optional destination project. It leaves open whether unlisted data such as subtasks, attachments, or repetition are excluded, and it does not explicitly state that a new task is created.

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?

One front-loaded, single-sentence description conveys the action, resource, optional project behavior, and copied fields with no filler. Every phrase contributes useful information.

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 full schema coverage and an output schema present, the description covers the core purpose adequately. It still leaves some call-relevant ambiguity: default project placement when no project is supplied, interaction between taskId and taskName, and whether non-listed data is silently omitted.

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%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters, setting the baseline at 3. The description's copied-fields list lightly reinforces includeNote/includeTags but adds little beyond what the schema already states.

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 states a specific action ('Duplicate') on a clear resource ('an existing task') and lists the copied fields, which makes the tool's purpose immediately understandable and distinct from edit/move siblings. It does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, 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?

Usage is implied: an agent can infer that this tool is for duplicating tasks, and the optional different-project behavior adds context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any reference to alternatives like move_task or edit_item.

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