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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable permission requirements and API-key scope details beyond those annotations, though it does not describe what view contents are copied or omitted.

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?

Two compact sentences front-load the core operation and then immediately state the permission requirements. There is 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 mutation tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly with the required permission context. It could be more complete by explaining what clone semantics include, but the essential invocation information is present.

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 67%, with the required `identifier` and `scope` parameters reasonably documented via descriptions/enums. However, `scopeIdentifier` has no schema description and the description does not clarify its role, so the description does not fully compensate for the remaining coverage gap.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Clone an existing view." It also clarifies the target can be a different scope, making the operation distinct from siblings like pm_create_view or pm_update_view.

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?

It states clear prerequisites: VIEW on the source and EDIT on the target scope, plus the required API-key scope `views:write`. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as creating a new view from scratch, but the cloning context is unambiguous.

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