duplicate_marketing_email

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only restates the copy action. It does not disclose side effects such as whether a new draft is created, whether the source email is left untouched, or whether any permissions/special state are required.

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 definition is two efficient sentences plus a compact Args list. The primary action is front-loaded, the workflow hint earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 simple two-parameter operation with an output schema present, this is close to sufficient. However, because annotations are absent, the description should clarify what the duplication produces (e.g., a new draft copy versus a published duplicate) to fully guide correct invocation.

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 description must compensate for both parameters. It does: source_id is documented as "ID of the email to copy" and new_name as "internal name for the copy," adding real meaning beyond the bare property names.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Duplicate a marketing email." The resource phrase also distinguishes it from sibling duplication tools like duplicate_page and duplicate_form, and the newsletter hint gives an immediate sense of the intended workflow.

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 "the usual way to start next month's newsletter" implies a common usage scenario, but it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over create_marketing_email_draft or other siblings, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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