node_plugin_clone_node_plugin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not that this is a mutating operation, what entity is created, whether it requires permissions, whether the clone is a deep or shallow copy, or whether it is reversible. Only the raw POST path hints at a write.

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 text is short, but a large share of it is auto-generated boilerplate (raw endpoint path, "Tags: Node Plugins Controller") that does not help an agent decide or invoke. It is not bloated, but the payload is thin.

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 a nested request body, no annotations, no output schema, and a partially undocumented parameter set, the description is far too thin. It omits what the clone returns and any destructive/side-effect context the agent would need.

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 50%: the nested cloneFromUuid has only format/pattern and no textual meaning, while confirm is documented in the schema itself (in Russian). The description adds nothing about either parameter, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented cloneFromUuid.

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 names the operation ("Clone Node Plugin") and gives the underlying HTTP route, so the verb and resource are identifiable. However, it offers no scope detail — what a clone produces, whether the copy is independent, or what distinguishes it from sibling node_plugin_create_config or node_plugin_sync_node_plugin. It is minimally viable but largely restates the tool name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many node-plugin siblings (create_config, sync_node_plugin, update_config), nor any prerequisites or conditions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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