duplicate_agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It confirms the tool creates a new agent but omits important details such as whether all configurations are copied (including sub-resources), any potential side effects (e.g., duplication of dependencies), rate limits, or security requirements. The description is too sparse to allow an agent to fully understand the implications of using this tool.

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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences that first state the action and result, then provide usage context. Every word is purposeful, with no redundancy or filler. The information is front-loaded, allowing an agent to quickly grasp the tool's purpose.

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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it does, the default behavior, and a typical use case. It could be slightly improved by explicitly differentiating from 'create_agent' or noting any limitations (e.g., inability to duplicate an agent with certain associated resources), but overall it is adequate for its complexity.

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 input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds value by explaining the overall purpose ('duplicate creating a new agent with the same configuration') and clarifying default behavior for the optional parameter ('If omitted, duplicates into your own organization'). This goes beyond the schema to provide operational context.

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 action ('Duplicate an existing agent') and the resource ('agent'), with added context about creating a copy with the same configuration. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_agent' by specifying it's for copying, and mentions use cases (testing, A/B comparisons), making the purpose explicit and 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 explains when to use the tool (to create identical agent copies for testing) and mentions the target organization default, providing context for usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like 'create_agent' or 'update_agent_config', so it misses clear exclusions.

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