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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world mutation. The description goes beyond them with the important exclusion 'Never inherits branding or funnel recipients' and by naming which subsystems can be carried over, which materially shapes expectations of the result.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the scope limit and the sibling routing. 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?

No output schema exists, yet the description never says what a successful clone returns (e.g. the new agent id) or whether the overrides replace or merge with source values. Those are meaningful gaps, but the core behavior, side-effect exclusions and alternatives are all covered.

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?

The description names the three carryOver keys, which mirrors what the schema already declares, but adds nothing about the nested override fields (theme, title, systemPrompt, vg_initMessages) or their effect. With schema description coverage at 33% and nested objects, more compensation was needed.

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?

Specific verb plus resource ('Clone an existing Convocore agent') with the scope of the copy spelled out via overrides and carryOver flags. It explicitly names the siblings it must not be confused with (create_agent_from_template, import_agent), so an agent can route without opening the schema.

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?

'Prefer this over manually recreating' plus 'Distinct from create_agent_from_template / import_agent' gives clear usage context and names the alternatives. It stops short of stating the conditions under which template-creation or import should win instead, so the routing rule is implied rather than explicit.

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