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

Annotations only state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description must disclose side effects. It clearly states that a copy is created (a mutating action) and describes the exact return payload, including that integrationId refers to the NEW clone. This goes beyond the annotations by specifying output structure and confirming the clone is a separate entity. It does not contradict any annotations, so a 4 is appropriate.

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?

The description is a single, dense sentence followed by a clear return specification. It front-loads the core purpose and then packs parameter guidance and return details without waste. While it is longer than minimal, every clause earns its place – no redundancy. It could be slightly more concise, but it is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

The description covers the essential information an agent needs: what it does, what parameters are required and how to source them, the return value structure, and the distinction between the original and the clone. It also indicates the action type ('clone') and status ('cloned') in the output. Given there is no output schema, this description serves as the complete contract for the operation. Nothing critical is missing.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: marketplace_id is the source (referencing list_marketplaces) and project_id is optional with conditions (inferred for single-project customers, otherwise required and must be obtained from list_projects). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare integer schema, giving the agent enough to supply correct values. This is excellent parameter documentation.

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 ('clone'), a specific resource ('marketplace'), and clarifies what is copied ('settings and configuration'). It distinguishes itself from create_marketplace (which creates from scratch) by explicitly stating it makes a copy of an existing marketplace, and the required source field is clearly identified. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 gives practical usage context: marketplace_id is the source from list_marketplaces, and project_id is optional or required depending on the customer's project setup, with a pointer to list_projects. This tells the agent when and how to call the tool, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like create_marketplace or delete_marketplace. It provides clear prerequisites and conditional logic, so it earns a 4.

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