Clone a storyline into a new draft (new key, unpublished, doesn't claim default, no chain pointer) for tweaking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| storyline_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses several non-obvious traits (new key, unpublished, doesn't claim default, no chain pointer), giving the agent valuable expectations. It does not mention permissions or source-side effects, but for a clone operation, these are less critical.
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 sentence that packs essential information without fluff. Parenthetical details are dense but well-organized, making it easy to scan.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations, output schema present), the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose and key behavioral constraints. It could mention the relation to the original storyline, but the phrase 'new draft' implies non-destructive behavior, which is sufficient for an agent.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameter storyline_id. It does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from the tool name and schema title. This is a gap, though the parameter is relatively self-explanatory.
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 clearly states a specific action ('Clone a storyline') and outcome ('a new draft'), with explicit distinguishing details: new key, unpublished, doesn't claim default, no chain pointer. This sets it apart from sibling tools like create_storyline, update_storyline, or export_storyline.
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 phrase 'for tweaking' provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you want a safe copy to modify without affecting the original. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using create_storyline for new storylines or update_storyline for existing ones.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are mostly distinct by domain and action. A few pairs like add_knowledge_file vs add_knowledge_text or build_knowledge_index vs patch_knowledge_index could cause confusion, but descriptions clearly differentiate them.
The vast majority follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_*, list_*, get_*, update_*). A few outliers like tenant_info, usage_stats, and page_context_stats are noun-first, deviating slightly from the otherwise uniform scheme.
With 50 tools, this is a very large surface that exceeds typical well-scoped server sizes. Even for a broad platform management API, the sheer number makes it heavy and potentially overwhelming, matching the '50+' extreme mismatch category.
The server covers creation, reading, updating, and listing for most resources but lacks any delete operations (no delete_agent, delete_knowledge_base, delete_skill, delete_share, delete_storyline, delete_page_context). This is a significant gap in lifecycle coverage that will force agents to work around missing functionality.