task_duplicate

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: which fields copy over (name, note, defer/due dates, etc.), which regenerate (id, timestamps), that completed/dropped state is not carried, side effects (creates task, sets syncPending), and the return value structure. This is comprehensive.

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 relatively long but well-organized: main purpose first, then details, warnings, return value, and examples. Each sentence serves a purpose, though it could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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 the tool's complexity (recursive duplication, multiple destination options, no output schema), the description is exceptionally complete. It covers all behavioral aspects, side effects, return fields, and gives two concrete examples. Nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant value: it explains the default placement ('alongside the source'), the constraint on destination ('exactly one of projectId, parentId, or toInbox: true'), and provides examples for common cases. This goes beyond the schema schema alone.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource ('Duplicate an OmniFocus task') and immediately clarifies the recursive option. It also explicitly distinguishes from siblings like task_move and task_create, making the tool's unique purpose clear.

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 provides explicit when-not-to-use guidance: 'Do NOT use task_duplicate as a substitute for task_move (which reparents the existing task) or task_create (when the new task's fields differ from the source).' It also explains default placement and destination options with concrete rules.

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