Api frameworks duplicate create

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

Annotations already disclose the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true), so the description's job is lighter. It adds genuine value by disclosing that the clone is deep and carries child objects (requirement nodes, questions, choices), warning the agent that this creates substantial related data. It does not say whether the copy starts as a draft, requires publish/editing workflow, or returns the new framework's identifier.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the scope of what is copied. No filler, nothing to trim.

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 non-idempotent mutation with an undocumented parameter and no output schema, the description covers what is copied but not what comes back (new id/ref?) or that repeated calls yield multiple distinct copies. Adequate but leaves real gaps for an agent planning the call.

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% for the single 'id' parameter, so the description must carry the meaning. 'Deep-clone a framework' only indirectly implies that 'id' identifies the source framework to copy; it never says so explicitly or clarifies whether the id is a URN, UUID, or ref_id.

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 verb+resource ('Deep-clone a framework') and enumerates the scope of what is copied (requirement nodes, questions, choices), which distinguishes it from the sibling frameworks_create. It does not explicitly name frameworks_create as the alternative, so an agent must infer the distinction from the verb alone.

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 statement of when to use this versus frameworks_create, frameworks_partial_update, or frameworks_tree_retrieve, and no prerequisites (e.g. that the framework must exist and be readable). The use case is only implied by the verb 'clone'.

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