gaea_clone_graph

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

With no annotations, the description must explain behavioral effects on its own. It mentions cloning and repointing but omits critical behavior: dryRun defaults to true (so by default nothing is written), overwrite defaults to false, and how the clone interacts with an existing targetGraph. These are significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 with no filler, and the primary verb and resource appear first. It is concise, though the phrase 'first File node' is jargon that could be clarified without bloating the text.

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?

This is a six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, yet the description provides only a two-line overview. It lacks critical guidance on dryRun, overwrite behavior, target graph existence, and what the tool returns, so an agent cannot invoke it confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by linking 'first File node' to heightmap and 'build output' to outputDir, but it does not explain dryRun, overwrite, sourceGraph, or targetGraph semantics beyond what the schema names imply. For six underdocumented parameters, this is insufficient.

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 clearly states the action ('Clone a .terrain graph') and the optional follow-up ('repoint its first File node and build output'). It distinguishes this from the sibling tools like gaea_open_graph or gaea_run_build, which serve different purposes, though it could be slightly more explicit about the target graph being new.

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 implies the tool is for cloning while optionally adjusting input and output, which differentiates it from gaea_set_input_heightmap and gaea_set_build_output. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. those alternatives or when not to use it.

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