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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, and the description adds non-obvious behavior beyond them: paper default means no real funds move, the clone starts PAUSED with 0 balance, and live clones must pass the platform trading gate. It also maps the tool to its REST twin for cross-checking.

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-loads the auth requirement and core action, then the mode default, then the mandatory follow-up sequence. Every sentence carries operational information; nothing is padding.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, the paper/live fork, the initial paused/zero-balance state, and the exact next calls needed — everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already documents all five parameters including paper's default and source_type's allowed values. The description restates the paper default but adds no syntax or format detail the schema lacks, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource — clone an AI trading bot into YOUR linked account — and scopes the default mode (PAPER). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_clonable_bots (source discovery) and fund_clone_bot (post-clone funding).

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?

Gives the prerequisite (api_key from register_agent) and names the tools that provide/consume its parameters: list_clonable_bots for source_id/source_type, fund_clone_bot and toggle_bot_trading for the required follow-up steps after the clone starts paused. The paper vs live fork is called out explicitly.

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