clone_instance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real behavioral trait beyond the name: the copy is full and includes world data, which tells the agent the clone is not a bare settings copy. It omits the mutation risks an agent needs, such as whether the target must be stopped, whether an existing name is overwritten or rejected, and whether the clone is auto-registered.

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 efficient sentence with the operation front-loaded and no padding. It is on the terse side rather than bloated, so brevity is not the failing here.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the definition leaves too much unknown: required target-name uniqueness, instance state prerequisites, what gets copied besides worlds, and what the call returns. The 'including worlds' note is the only substantive detail.

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 for both parameters. It only loosely explains newName ('under a new name'), and says nothing about what 'id' refers to (instance id vs. instance name) or its expected format — a documented ambiguity for the caller.

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 names a specific verb (clone) and resource (an instance directory), and clarifies the operation is a full copy including worlds. It implicitly separates itself from create_instance by specifying the source is an existing instance, but it never names or contrasts a sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to clone versus create_instance, import_modpack, or export_instance, nor any stated prerequisites. The agent must infer that cloning duplicates an existing instance rather than creating a fresh one.

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