duplicate_form

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the core semantics: it copies field definitions and settings under a new name and requires label translation afterward. It does not mention permissions, whether the source form remains untouched, or what the new form's publish/draft state is, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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 compact and front-loaded: the purpose and use case appear in the first line, followed by the specific copy behavior and a useful next step. The Args block is minimal and necessary given the lack of schema descriptions. There is no filler or repetition heavy enough to cost a point.

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 an output schema exists, the description does not need to document return values. It covers the use case, copy behavior, follow-up translation step, and both parameters. The main completeness gap is that it routes the agent to update_form_draft, which is not among the listed siblings, and it does not clarify how this relates to create_language_variant.

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 0%, so the Args section is the only explanatory documentation. It adds real meaning: source_id is 'ID of the form to copy' and new_name is 'name for the copy.' It does not provide constraints such as uniqueness or length, but for two plain string parameters the semantics are sufficiently clear.

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 line states the exact action and resource: 'Duplicate a form' and adds the canonical use case: 'the usual way to make a second-language variant.' The second sentence clarifies the copy scope ('field definitions and settings') and that a new name is given, which distinguishes this from generic form creation and other duplication tools.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when making a second-language variant, and it even names the follow-up step of translating labels via update_form_draft. It does not, however, explicitly state when not to use it or compare it with alternatives like create_language_variant, and the referenced update_form_draft is not present in the sibling-tool list.

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