Duplicate Image Post

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation and non-idempotency profile is covered. "Changes community state" is vague and adds little beyond that, though the confirm=true gating is a useful behavioral constraint (albeit mirrored in the schema). Nothing here discloses what is copied, what is created, or permission requirements.

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 with no padding, front-loaded with the action and followed by the gating constraint. Efficient, though the first sentence is pure name restatement and earns little.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description is thin: it omits what the duplication produces, how account selection and confirm interact with the payload/payload_file/body-flag options, and any permission requirements. High schema coverage and the safety annotations partially compensate, but the description does not.

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 the parameters well, establishing the baseline of 3. The description's only parameter note (confirm=true) duplicates the schema's own confirm description and adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail (e.g., how payload, payload_file, and body flags interact).

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's first sentence, "Duplicate Image Post," simply restates the tool name/title and adds no semantic detail beyond it. An agent can infer this creates a copy of an existing image post, but nothing distinguishes it from siblings like create_image_post, duplicate_event, or duplicate_form. It is minimally clear but goes no further.

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 only usage-relevant claim is that confirm=true is required, which the schema already documents verbatim for the confirm parameter. There is no guidance on when to choose this over create_image_post or update_post, and no prerequisites or exclusions are offered.

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