Duplicate Event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation profile is covered structurally. The description adds the useful confirm=true gate, which is genuine context beyond the annotations, but it omits what the duplicate copies (attendees, content) and how the source event relates to the target space.

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?

It is short, but the first sentence is pure filler restating the title. This is under-specification disguised as brevity — the space saved is spent nowhere useful.

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 7-parameter, nested-object mutation tool with no output schema, this is inadequate: it never explains that event_id identifies the source and event.space_id the destination, nor how payload, payload_file, and the body flags interact (the schema forbids mixing them).

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 86%, so the schema already documents confirm, event_id, space_id, account, and the payload/payload_file alternatives. The description's confirm note merely restates the schema's own wording and adds nothing about the event_id-to-event.space_id relationship or the payload vs payload_file choice.

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 first sentence, "Duplicate Event," is a tautology that simply restates the tool title. The only other content — "Changes community state and requires confirm=true" — is behavioral, not purpose, so the description never states what is being duplicated or how it differs from siblings like duplicate_form, duplicate_workflow, or duplicate_image_post.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use duplicate_event versus update_event or create_event. The phrase "for the user-requested action" gestures at when to set confirm, but it does not tell the agent which action, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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