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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description clarifies the non-destructive side effect: it creates a new DRAFT without modifying the source. It doesn't cover permissions or edge cases, but the core behavioral scope is disclosed.

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 concise sentences with an actionable verb and a clear use case. No filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter clone operation, the description explains the main behavior and the intended scenario. It doesn't describe return values (no output schema), but that's a minor gap for this tool.

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?

Both parameters (groupId, versionId) have 100% schema coverage with descriptive names and UUID formats. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description states a specific action ('Clone an existing policy version') and its result ('as a new DRAFT'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like lexq_deploy_* or lexq_versions_create. The verb plus resource and outcome make the tool's purpose immediately identifiable.

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 a clear usage context: cloning is useful when the source version is already published. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, but the 'Useful when' phrasing provides enough situational guidance for an agent.

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