Duplicate a workflow

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds the non-obvious confirmation guard ('requires confirm=true for the user-requested action') and notes that community state changes, which goes beyond the structured fields. It does not say what the duplicate inherits or whether the original is untouched, so it falls short of a 5.

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 the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The phrasing 'for the user-requested action' is slightly vague but does not bloat the text.

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?

With no output schema, the description could ideally say what the returned duplicate looks like or how it is named, but the safety profile is fully carried by annotations and the confirm prerequisite is disclosed. Nearly complete for a simple duplication tool.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces the confirm semantics, adding no syntax or format detail beyond that. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (duplicate a workflow), which is clear enough to distinguish it from sibling duplicators like duplicate_event and duplicate_form by resource. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings, so it lands just below the top score.

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 hints at a pre-condition for invocation (confirm=true for the user-requested action) but gives no guidance on when to choose this over alternatives or on any prerequisites like source workflow state. Usage is implied rather than explained.

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