duplicate_form

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by detailing side effects: it creates a brand-new form with fresh share links, does not copy submissions/integrations/ban state, and is explicitly non-idempotent with timeout-ambiguity warnings. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs beyond readOnly/destructive 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?

The description is structured effectively: main action and scope first, then exclusions, use case, and a critical non-idempotency warning. Every sentence carries meaningful information with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's complexity—mutating, with timeout ambiguity and precise copy/exclusion semantics—the description covers everything needed to call it correctly. It explains what happens, what does not happen, when to use it, and how to handle retries. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required here.

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% and both parameters already have clear descriptions in the schema. The description adds general context about ownership and fresh links but no extra parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'duplicate' with a specific resource ('a form in the current team') and enumerates exactly what is cloned and what is not copied, such as submission records and sharing. This active scoping differentiates it from related form tools like create_form or create_form_from_template without needing to open schemas.

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 provides clear context: 'Useful for cloning a proven quiz and tweaking it.' It also gives guidance on retry behavior after a timeout. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the intended use case is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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