Duplicate Automation

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior: creates a copy with its own ID and preserves steps/connections. It doesn't explicitly state side effects like whether the original remains untouched, but that is strongly implied by 'creating a copy' and there is no destructive behavior implied. It could add more detail about response or failures, but for this simple operation it is adequate.

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 three sentences without unnecessary detail. It front-loads the action, then explains the result and the appropriate usage context, followed by the follow-up action on the new ID. 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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the main usage, creation behavior, and next-step with update-automation. A minor gap is that it never explicitly states what the response returns, though it implies the new ID is accessible since it says 'Use update-automation on the new ID.' Overall, it's sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 schema provides 100% parameter documentation, including the type, required status, and a clear description with an example URL format. The tool description reinforces this by mentioning 'by ID or Resend dashboard URL' but does not add new semantics beyond what the schema already communicates. This matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 and resource: 'Duplicate an existing automation by ID or Resend dashboard URL.' It clarifies that the result is a copy with its own ID and includes the original's steps and connections, distinguishing itself from create-automation, which builds work from scratch. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: 'Use this when the user wants a new automation based on one they already have, instead of rebuilding from scratch.' It also points to a concrete alternative: 'Use update-automation on the new ID to rename it or change its workflow.' This gives clear direction for the agent.

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