modx_duplicate_element

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that `name` is optional for the copy, and never states what name the duplicate gets if omitted, whether the copy is enabled/published, what permissions are needed, or that a new element record is created as a side effect.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and free of filler. It is efficient to the point of under-specification, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description is the only behavioral source. It omits the outcome of the call, default naming, permission requirements, and side effects such as whether the copy inherits properties or TV bindings.

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 0%, so the description must explain all three parameters. It restates that `type` and `id` are needed and that `name` names the copy, but adds no meaning about what `id` refers to (element ID vs. resource ID) or the default naming behavior when `name` is absent; the enum values are already in the schema.

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?

Uses a specific verb ("Duplicate") with a specific resource ("element") and enumerates the valid element kinds, which distinguishes it from modx_duplicate_resource. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer that distinction from the type list alone.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. An agent gets no help distinguishing this from modx_create_element, modx_get_element, or modx_duplicate_resource beyond the parenthetical type list.

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