clone_tree_to_strategy

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. It does disclose the key trait — deep copy with new IDs — but it does not address side effects such as whether the original tree stays untouched, what happens to existing thoughts in the target strategy, or how namePrefix affects the clone.

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?

One tightly worded sentence with the primary behavior front-loaded and the important deep-copy semantics placed in a parenthetical. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description captures the core operation but leaves return expectations, when-to-choose-over-move_tree_to_strategy, and side-effect details unstated. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 schema already documents treeId, namePrefix, and strategyIdOrName. The description adds general deep-copy context but does not clarify parameter edge cases such as ambiguous strategy names or optional prefix behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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 action ('Clone... into a strategy') and resource (a tree), and clarifies semantics with 'deep copy with new IDs for tree and all thoughts.' This naturally distinguishes it from move_tree_to_strategy without needing to name the sibling.

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 phrasing implies a copy operation rather than a move, so an agent can infer when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance, prerequisite, or pointer to move_tree_to_strategy as the alternative. The description does not state whether the target strategy must already exist or whether create_strategy should be called first.

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