common-new-item-clone

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds nothing beyond the operation itself: it doesn't explain Sitecore clone semantics (a clone stays linked to its original and inherits changes), what content is duplicated, or how 'recurse' alters scope. For a mutation tool with meaningful side effects, this is thin.

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?

A single efficient sentence with no filler, and the verb is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, so conciseness is not the problem.

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?

An 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations explaining clone behavior. The description omits the critical Sitecore distinction that a clone is a live-linked reference rather than a detached copy, and says nothing about destination/name validation or recursion — gaps an agent cannot recover from the schema alone.

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 100%, so all eight parameters are already documented in the schema (id/path, recurse, fields, database, destination). The description adds no syntax, defaults, or interaction detail beyond what the schema provides, so 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 clear verb+resource ('Creates a new item clone') and identifies the source ('based on the item provided'). However, it does not differentiate itself from closely related siblings such as common-get-item-clone or common-convert-from-item-clone, leaving the agent to infer which clone-related tool to pick.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative tools are named. The presence of common-get-item-clone and common-convert-from-item-clone in the sibling list makes this omission notable — the definition never explains how 'new clone' differs from those.

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