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

Annotations only declare it is a non-read, non-destructive write, so the description carries the real burden and does well: it discloses the 20-DRAFT-per-group cap and the 100-rule clone ceiling. It omits auth/permission requirements and what settings carry over, keeping it short of a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and result state, followed by the two constraints. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 2-param mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the outcome (new DRAFT) and the two failure conditions an agent must account for. It would be a 5 if it hinted at the returned identifier or that the clone copies rules from the source.

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 coverage is 100% with two clearly described UUID parameters, so the schema does the work. The description adds no format, ordering, or naming semantics beyond what the schema provides, 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?

States a specific verb (clone) and resource (existing version), and specifies the resulting state (new DRAFT), which cleanly separates it from lexq_versions_create. An agent can distinguish the intent without opening either 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?

"Useful when the source version is already published" gives a clear condition that steers an agent toward this over a blank create, but it does not name the alternative tool or state explicit when-not-to-use cases.

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