Duplicate product

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

Annotations already declare the operation is mutating but not destructive, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds the useful detail that the new product is named '{name} Copy', but does not disclose other behaviors like which fields are copied or whether the operation is synchronous. This is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the naming detail. Every word earns its place 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 single parameter, no output schema, and straightforward operation, the description covers the essential context. It lacks details about what fields are copied or what the response contains, but for a simple clone tool with one parameter, the provided information is nearly complete.

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 100% with product_id described as 'Source product UUID'. The description adds 'existing product' and 'within the same brand', slightly reinforcing the parameter's meaning, but the schema already does the heavy lifting, 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 uses the specific verb 'Clone' with a clear resource 'existing product' and a scope constraint 'within the same brand'. It also discloses the naming convention of the copy, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like copy_product_to_brand.

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 phrase 'within the same brand' clearly indicates when this tool is appropriate, contrasting with cross-brand duplication. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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