Clone an application

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a copy operation (clone) but doesn't state the resulting behavior - e.g., what ID the clone gets, whether it appears in the application list immediately, whether the clone overwrites anything, or if there are permission requirements. For a mutation tool with zero annotations, more behavioral detail would be valuable.

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 description is a single sentence plus a usage hint - appropriately concise with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose and adds the use case in the second sentence. Could arguably expand slightly on behavioral details, but for what it includes, it's tight and efficient.

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?

The tool is simple (1 param, no output schema, no nested objects), and the description covers the core purpose and a use case. However, it doesn't address what happens after cloning (returned ID?), whether there are naming conventions for the clone, or whether the clone can be distinguished from the original. For a mutation tool with no annotations, slightly more behavioral/return info would improve completeness.

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 the parameter applicationId is fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add anything beyond 'within its workspace' regarding the parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description provides only marginal added context about the parameter's role.

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 the tool clones an application within its workspace - a clear verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like appsmith_export_application and appsmith_create_application by specifying 'within its workspace' (as opposed to export or creating a new one). The name 'appsmith_clone_application' is unambiguous and the description reinforces the purpose clearly.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Useful as a backup before risky edits.' This tells the agent when to use this tool (before risky modifications). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name an alternative (e.g., when you'd want an export instead of a clone), so it falls just short of a 5.

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