Duplicate Template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the operation creates a new draft copy with a new ID, giving some behavioral insight. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects on the original template, or reversibility, which would be expected for a mutation tool without annotation safety hints.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every sentence provides essential information. The description is concise with no redundant or filler content.

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 simple single-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description adequately explains the action and accepted input. It lacks some detail like the resulting template content, but the phrase 'new draft copy' gives sufficient context for this scope.

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 100% with the parameter description fully explaining 'ID, alias, or Resend dashboard URL.' The tool description repeats this same information without adding meaningful new semantics, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 specifically states 'Duplicate an existing email template in Resend' with a clear verb and resource, and adds the outcome 'Creates a new draft copy of the template with a new ID.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update-template, publish-template, or create-template.

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 usage for duplicating an existing template, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it instead of alternatives or any exclusions. It lacks direct comparison like 'use search_calls_extensive instead' which would justify a higher score.

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