duplicate_notebook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses copied content, the naming convention, placement next to the original, cell-id regeneration, background execution, best-effort snapshot copying, and the caveat that last_run_status is history only and does not imply a snapshot exists. These are precisely the non-obvious traits an agent would otherwise guess wrong about.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, and each following sentence carries distinct operational information (naming, background behavior, run history caveat, tab-switch rule). It is slightly dense across four sentences, but no sentence is redundant.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description fully assumes the disclosure burden for a mutation tool: what is copied, where the result goes, that it runs in the background, and what the user experiences afterward. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Only one parameter (buffer_id) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains the argument. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema's own note that the id comes from the notebook context prefix, so this sits at the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Duplicate a notebook tab') and immediately separates itself from sibling duplicate_cell and create_notebook by specifying that the whole notebook, its cells, layout, and run history are copied into a NEW notebook. An agent can distinguish it from the cell-level duplicate without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly prescribes behavior after the call: the copy is ALWAYS in the background, the user's active tab is never switched, and activate_notebook should only be called if the user explicitly asks. That is a precise when-not rule with the alternative named, which is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs.

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