Copy an event, whole

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: deep-cloning semantics, fresh id, self switches keyed by event id so a copied chest starts closed, both copies remaining live, and the source being unmodified. It stops short of covering permissions, failure modes, or what the call returns, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then layered with behavioral detail in efficiently packed sentences. Dense but each sentence adds real information; no filler.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the behavioral contract well (clone depth, id/switch reset, liveness, source immutability). The gap is parameter-level detail for the four undocumented required fields.

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 only 33% (name and toMapId documented; mapId, eventId, x, y bare). The description implies destination semantics via 'another cell or another map' but never maps its language onto x, y, or toMapId explicitly, so the four required parameters remain semantically thin.

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 an event onto another cell or another map') and immediately enumerates what is copied (pages, conditions, graphic, trigger, command list, note). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like place_event or add_commands, which create or extend rather than deep-clone.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: the note that 'both copies are live afterwards, which matters for an autorun or parallel-process event' signals a relevant scenario, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus place_event, and no prerequisites or exclusions are named.

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