clone_prompt_snippet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states a 'new, independent copy' is created, implying no side effects on the original. However, it does not disclose if all attributes (e.g., versions, permissions) are cloned or any limitations, such as whether the copy is draft or published.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, zero wasted words. Every word adds value.

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 output schema) and rich sibling context, the description is mostly complete. It lacks details on what exactly is copied, but for a clone operation, the basic behavior is conveyed. Slightly better than minimum for such a simple 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter (snippetId) described as 'The prompt snippet's id.' The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but baseline is adequate for a simple parameter.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'duplicate' and resource 'prompt snippet', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like create_prompt_snippet (creates new) or update_prompt_snippet (modifies existing). It states the result is a 'new, independent copy', which is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_prompt_snippet or list_prompt_snippets. The description does not mention prerequisites, constraints, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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