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

Annotations only provide generic hints (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false), so the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the new agent's naming convention, that configuration is carried over, that all include flags default on except memory, and the required role of Lead Builder or above. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: state the operation and naming, explain the include_* flags and defaults, and state the permission requirement. There is no filler or repetition of schema fields; the most important information is front-loaded.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core semantics, default behavior, and access control. It does not explicitly describe the return value or potential error cases, but the clear naming and include-flag guidance make it adequate for correct invocation in most scenarios.

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 the input schema already fully documents every parameter, including defaults for all include_* flags. The description's mention of include_* flags and 'all default on except memory' adds no semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 action ('Duplicate'), the resource ('an existing agent'), and the exact outcome (a new agent named 'Copy of <name>'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like createAgent, updateAgent, and moveAgent without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 makes the intended use obvious: copy an existing agent with its configuration and control which parts are copied via the include_* flags. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the duplication semantics are clear enough to guide selection against createAgent or updateAgent.

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